I was interested to hear one of our members say they had contacted sco and asked for clarification of what code was "stolen or copyright" so they could remove it and received no answer.
I wonder what would happen if all the LUG group members in NZ asked the same question or better yet, collected together, bought a "license" and then asked for confirmation of the purchase in the form of the source code they had just purchased. SCO would then be obliged to hand over confirmation of purchase or else face the probability of being taken to court for defrauding a customer with false claims. The Fair Trading Act says a good or service purchased must meet the purpose for which it was bought and represented as doing / providing when it ws purchased. Having purchased code SCO would need to show proof of product suitability. Just a thought }8-)> Shane On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:12, you 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. -- Shane Hollis Notes Unlimited New Zealand Ph: 021 465 547 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
