In the article, "Legal threat to commercial Linux users", http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/15/1052885324252.html SCO claims that:
"When SCO's own UNIX software code is being illegally copied into Linux, we believe we have an obligation to educate commercial users of the potential liability that could rest with them for using such software to run their business. We feel so strongly about this issue that we are suspending sales and distribution of SCO Linux until these issues are resolved." I have a few questuions about this SCO claim. 1. Exactly which files in the source tree /usr/src/linux-2.4.24/* or in any of the separate packages (netkit, xfree86, mozilla, apache, etc.) did the Linux authors copy from commercial UNIX? >From my study of Unix history it looks like all of the NetBSD code that were adapted to Linux are free of any trace of Unixism. 2. Exactly what does "commercial users" of Linux mean? 3. Since when did "Linux" become "SCO Linux", and what does FSF/GNU say about this? PMana -- Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Official Website: http://plug.linux.org.ph Searchable Archives: http://marc.free.net.ph . To leave, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/plug . Are you a Linux newbie? To join the newbie list, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/ph-linux-newbie
