Replies

It's awful premature to be sipping champagne - I've still not seen anything showing this one example we've seen a screen shot of doesn't still belong to them. Without express rights for others to distribute it, it still belongs to ATT/SCO. So far I've heard it was in a book (without express permission to redistribute), and that some code may have been released by Caldera (but it said excluding Sys V), and that it was in BSD (which doesn't mean it still doesn't originally belong to SCO).

Notice not one media person has run with this underground Linux theory yet. Maybe tomorrow, but those pictures of this one slide are already a couple days old, so I wouldn't get your hopes up.

I've still not seen anything showing this one example we've seen a screen shot of doesn't still belong to them

Having watched other people read it to you, provide you with links, shove it in your face, scream it in your ears, and draw you pictures until they are blue in the face, I have to dismiss this latest statement from you as just another troll.

But just in case anyone came in late, I would not want your talking point left unanswered. So...

So far I've heard it was in a book (without express permission to redistribute), and that some code may have been released by Caldera (but it said excluding Sys V), and that it was in BSD (which doesn't mean it still doesn't originally belong to SCO).

You really are clueless, aren't you? Align the codebase timeline of BSD with SCO. Then note that the BSD codebase is not only FAR older than SCO, but that the status of the BSD codebase with respect to AT&T Unix (from which SCO was derived) was established in a rather well-known court drama a long time ago.

If AT&T and Bell Labs (800-lb gorillas to be sure) were unable to assert their Unix ownership over BSD already in court, what makes you think a legal midget like SCO will prevail, particularly when SCO post-dates BSD? If SCO had demonstrated a Linux-only bit of source they *might* have something that at least would make an argument, but using an example that it turns out to exist in old BSD codebases is mindbogglingly stupid since BSDs claim to their old codebases is pretty much court-tested and iron-clad. All this would seem to indicate is that SCO, like most other operating systems, borrowed code from the BSD codebase. (Indeed, this was what the original AT&T versus BSD court battle was about -- AT&T claiming ownership rights to code written by BSD that was added to Unix).

Now that this has been discovered, SCO is going to get reamed. AT&T and BSD already duked it out ages ago and BSD won the right to their codebase in all essential aspects. Taking on Linux was dubious at best, but taking on BSD is downright idiotic.