| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Apologize?Apologize?Posted Aug 22, 2003 9:31 UTC (Fri) by kasperd (guest, #11842)In reply to: Maybe SCO had a point by dwalters Parent article: Maybe SCO had a point
I don't see why I should apologize for something I didn't do. The person who actually "stole" the code (if that is even what happened) should apologize. Those of us who cannot check the code against closed sources, because we don't have access to the closed sources, are in no way responsible for what has happened. SCO is more responsible than the majority of Linux developers and users.
(Log in to post comments)
Apologize? Posted Aug 31, 2003 12:54 UTC (Sun) by roncando (guest, #14643) [Link] Well, why not?But more important, a structural approach should be created to (at least try to) guarantee that no copyrichted code can (anymore) show up in GPL-ed software.
Apologize? Posted Sep 8, 2003 1:53 UTC (Mon) by turpie (guest, #5219) [Link] That sounds a nice idea, I am looking forward to hearing how you propose this will should be done. :)How would you know whether the code someone gives you is copyrighted by someone else or not? How do you know if I copied the above sentences from someone else? Without hiring Harry Potter to cast some magic spell there would be no way to tell for sure. ---
|
|
||||||||||||