exactly: SCO: nick, pay me to use linux nick: don't believe I have to, so sue me SCO: issues proceedings nick: defends them, seeks particulars of the offending code SCO: err.....
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:12:03 +1200 Chris Wilkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > >
