| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
AuthenticityAuthenticityPosted Sep 12, 2003 4:22 UTC (Fri) by dwalters (guest, #4207)In reply to: Linus responds to SCO by mbp Parent article: Linus responds to SCO Isn't it interesting how many people have expressed doubts about the authenticity of this communication from Linus Torvalds. I don't recall there being any similiar discussions about the authenticity of recent press release announcements from Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond. I have no doubt that this came from Linus Torvalds, but perhaps the fact that a few people have expressed doubts about it shows that this was a little out of character for him. Maybe the open letter from Darl McBride was just a little more than he could take without feeling he HAD to say something.
(Log in to post comments)
Not really all that interesting Posted Sep 12, 2003 15:27 UTC (Fri) by brokeninside (guest, #8722) [Link] Perens and Raymond both hosted their open letter on their respective web sites along with submitting it as a press release. Linus has not done the same. This leaves the open letter from Linus having a lesser amount of trustworthiness.It is also relevent that forged emails from Linus have made their way to the LKML and other places in the past. Some of these have been remarkably in character. That said, I doubt whether or not Linus actually wrote this particular letter is of no real consequence provided that he agrees with the sentiment and the fashion in which that sentiment was expressed.
Authenticity Posted Sep 12, 2003 15:28 UTC (Fri) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] My doubts have nothing to do with contents of the Linus' letter. It's the wording of the LWN article that made me (and probably others) suspicious:An "open response" from Linus Torvalds to Darl McBride's letter is being circulatedIf the editors said - "we've got a responce from Linus" or "Linus has published his responce", there would be no question. But it sounded as if the editor wasn't sure if the letter was original.
|
|
||||||||||||