From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: grog@lemis.com (Greg Lehey) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:32:32 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] Fwd: Helping in the battle against SCO In-Reply-To: References: <20030911000259.F34D91E83@minnie.tuhs.org> Message-ID: <20030911173232.GD946@adelaide.lemis.com> On Wednesday, 10 September 2003 at 17:41:49 -0700, Andru Luvisi wrote: > On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Norman Wilson wrote: >> I don't see how any diffing we do will make any difference >> `in the battle against SCO.' > [snip] > > Some ways that I can see it being a good thing to do: > > If SCO holds up a piece of common code and the good guys have no > response, that is bad. Agreed. That doesn't apply to either piece of code they've shown so far. This is http://www.lemis.com/grog/SCO/code-comparison.html again. > If SCO holds up a piece of common code and the good guys already > know that it actually came from BSD, and are prepared to > demonstrate such, that is good. That's the second example :-) The question I've asked SCO is: how could you have missed the Berkeley license agreement at the beginning of this file? SCO have backed off claiming that this is System V code, and claim it's just an example of their code comparison techniques. But on slide 15 of their presentation (http://www.vangennip.nl/perens/SCOsource_Briefing_II.2.pdf), they clearly claim that it's System V code. This suggests that SCO have recognized their error, though they haven't yet had the decency to apologize to the BSD community. Greg -- Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers