[justlurking]

It's going to take a while for this to shake out, but from what I've seen, SCO has made a monumental mistake. I suspected that the "infringing" code was actually from a common source like BSD, and this appears to establish that.

There's enough evidence for someone to put together a comprehensive article debunking SCO's claims, at least in this particular instance. When I see one, I'll post it.

[justlurking]

More interesting claims coming in. Dunno which ones are correct (yet)

1. First code was released under the BSD license by Caldera (previous incarnation of SCO) in 2000.

2. Second page of code was from ate_utils.c, which has already been removed from kernel (because it was deemed to be "ugly"). Code was originally contributed by Hewlett-Packard for the ia64, although copyright on file names SGI.