[N3WBI3]

The memo is post 2000, infact the memo occurred not long before Darl has said that there is line for line copying of SCO openunix code into Linux.. Now it seems the 1999 memo was the one saying there were lines of code *but* that code could be BSD. The memo from August of 2002 (after three years worth of time to gather info) said that that had no information indicating copyright infringement, and defiantly no evidence of the direct copying Darl claimed was there in his extortion license.. So are you going to address the content of this memo or not?

[TechJunkYard]

.. it seems the 1999 memo was the one saying there were lines of code *but* that code could be BSD. The memo from August of 2002 (after three years worth of time to gather info) said that that had no information indicating copyright infringement..

Actually, B2K has a point. The 1999 study looked at Red Hat 5.2 (used the 2.0.36 kernel IIRC) and Darl alleges infringements in kernels 2.4 and up. These memos/emails do not really address any subsequent copying. We can probably assume that the line-by-line stuff highlighted in the Swartz memo was resolved by the time Davidson wrote his email.

What about anything added after 2000? assuming there was, of course...

[Bush2000]

The memo was recalling research that was done in 1999. IBM subsequently added a ton of functionality to Linux. Bottom line: the memo doesn't help anybody.