[Golden Eagle]

This is from 1979. I'm not clear on the origin of the code referenced above....

You're not? Well that is the question, I believe, down to the root, and were they authorized to do that. If it was a previous licensee, how do you know they were allowed?

It actually makes sense that if SCO was willing to show any portion of their evidence in public, it might be something that was already 'public', even if illegally. Maybe that's giving SCO more benefit of the doubt than they deserve, but I've certainly not seen any of this frantic evidence gathering by these partisans as proof of anything yet.

[justlurking]

Well that is the question, I believe, down to the root, and were they authorized to do that. If it was a previous licensee, how do you know they were allowed?

All you have to do is follow some of the links. It provides information about the origin. At the time I posted that comment, I didn't know and hadn't yet found it.

The important part is the date: 1979. It predates SCO Unix, and invalidates their claim of prior art.

[Nick Danger]

Well that is the question, I believe, down to the root, and were they authorized to do that. If it was a previous licensee, how do you know they were allowed?

I know how much you like to repeat the same talking point over and over again no matter how many times it's been debunked, so I'm sure we'll be hearing this one from you again.

So I have prepared a handy little gif that demonstrates that Caldera itself released this stuff as follows:

There's more of course, but let's not waste time with the "IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE" crap. Suffice to say that Caldera not only shipped all this stuff under the GPL, they also released it under a BSD license on their own letterhead.

You'll be seeing this gif every time I see your talking point.