There are, as far as I can tell, two camps of thought on why they don't. Either: a) they're full of hot air, and can't prove anything OR b) they know that as soon as they point out the offending code it'll be fixed, and they won't have anything left to bitch about.
Either way, you can be sure they're counting on spreading FUD and trying to get money out of people first. Not making a valid claim, or proving it. Just scaring people with lawyers. Which is what this is all about. Cheers, Gareth On Tuesday 19 August 2003 21:12, Chris Wilkinson wrote: > Hi there, > > 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.
