Because it was in the article that started the thread.
Your whole defense is scrambled and meaningless.
Only because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence and insist on having it laid out on a silver platter. OK, have it your way. But, I demand the same thing: no more vague allegations. If you have an accusation to make, back it up with hard evidence. In other words, put up or shut up.
Direct me to a concise corroborated description and I will evaluate.
You can start with the article posted at the beginning of the thread.
But this unorganized gushing is worthless, and the critical root flows still aren't being adressed.
The existence of the code in question in the public domain, after being put there by previous "owners" of the Unix license establishes that SCO's claims are bogus.
What is the timeline, and how hard is it to understand why timelines are needed?
The timeline has already been established by the timestamps on previous releases of the code into the public domain, most recently by Caldera in 2002 (a previous incarnation of today's SCO Group).
But, if pictures will help you, try this:
It's part of this article. It's a long, but interesting read, such as:
The dashed red arrow from 4.2BSD to System V represents stolen property. AT&T, SCO/Caldera's predecessor in interest, took code from BSD Unix into System V, removing copyright notices and attributions in violation of the Berkeley license.
There's a much longer discussion of this, in the section entitled: SCO/Caldera misrepresents the scope of its rights over Unix.