Gareth Williams wrote:
Nobody doubts this, least of all SCO. Which is why they haven't, to date, actually said _what_ the offending code is. Just that there is some. Somewhere. Apparently. ;-)
No one should pay them a bean until they prove beyond all doubt that their claim is valid...ie, tell the linux community which part of the code it is and show the original to validate the claim...
On Tuesday 19 August 2003 17:18, Chris Wilkinson wrote:
I think the answer for Linux is to remove the code, add a different code that accomplishes the same thing, and give the big fat finger to SCO...
Kind regards,
Chris Wilkinson, Christchurch.
