| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Maybe SCO had a pointMaybe SCO had a pointPosted Aug 22, 2003 2:03 UTC (Fri) by ken (subscriber, #625)In reply to: Maybe SCO had a point by dwalters Parent article: Maybe SCO had a point I did not dismiss it but SCO reaction over this is in no way proportional to the "crime" in fact it is completely insane. It would have been no problem at all for them to show what code they was concerned about from the beginning as there is absolutely no trade secret or anything like it in this code. In fact the function of the code is common knowledge. But it's also impossible to protect us from this. how could you possible test something against something that you do not have access to. It's always going to be the copyright holders job of finding the problem after all linux is open they are not. Had they simply post a message saying where the problem was this had been resolved a long time ago.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||