On Sunday 08 June 2003 08:37, Hans Forbrich wrote: <snip>
I'd guess there would be a bouncing of dates between the first Linux entry and the first Unix entry, ie. cross-pollination, not uni-directional pollination. (And I'd guess that there is sufficient GPL'd code in UNIX that UNIX itself is in violation of GPL.)
I wouldn't be surprised if that is one reason why Caldera is keeping secret exactly what they are basing the claim. I doubt that the IBM lawyers are so stupid as not to evaluate the timeline as to when the code got where. However, the so-called "analyst" that looked at the code was probably not looking at any time line but "Oh, the code is the same. Since the UNIX source is priopriatary, the Linux *must* have taken it from there". (Or some other such nonsense). Personally, I think that IBM might still have a fight ahead, since it may need to prove in court that they were not the source. However, finding all of the SCO and Caldera references made me feel a lot better. First, a (possible) source of "contamination" is pretty clear and pretty obviously this person knew the insides of the UNIX code. Second, since it is "the cat is out of the bad" issue for Linux in general, I don't see how Caldera could get away with anything involving end users. Regards, jimmo -- --------------------------------------- "Be more concerned with your character than with your reputation. Your character is what you really are while your reputation is merely what others think you are." -- John Wooden --------------------------------------- Be sure to visit the Linux Tutorial: http://www.linux-tutorial.info --------------------------------------- NOTE: All messages sent to me in response to my posts to newsgroups, mailing lists or forums are subject to reposting.