| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Infoworld talks to the author of the code!Infoworld talks to the author of the code!Posted Aug 22, 2003 13:58 UTC (Fri) by donwaugaman (subscriber, #4214)In reply to: Infoworld talks to the author of the code! by markhb Parent article: Maybe SCO had a point That article is talking about the Berkeley Packet Filter code, not the atealloc() implementation that Eric Raymond's article references. I think that Bruce Perens' first (and incontroverted) conclusion was that SCO was completely off their rocker in going after the BPF code, as it had been a reimplementation from the ground up - even though direct use of the code under the BSD license would have been legal (I believe they had dropped the advertising clause by then). Similarities between the SCO and Linux code in the BPF can be explained by the use of the same spec. I wonder how many other similarities between the two kernels can be explained in the same way? If SCO hasn't been diligent in figuring out which similarities are due to actual copying, and which aren't, they're going to look pretty bad in discovery, not to mention when and if an actual trial happens.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||