Network Managing, Engineering and Administration with an eye toward security.
Best practices meets the real world!
|
|
| Net Manager Network Managing, Engineering and Administration with an eye toward security. Best practices meets the real world! |
|
|
Monday, June 30, 2003 He's back.... Darl McBride of SCO speaks to vnunet.com regarding the SCO -vs- IBM lawsuit. vnunet.com Interview: SCO chief Darl McBride part 1 Here are some of the more interesting quotes: But in order to enforce that you have to go through the courts. We have taken every step possible. Now it's for the courts to step up and enforce the contract rights that we have. The people that have looked at this - both our legal teams as well as independent people coming from the outside - say: 'These contracts are bullet-proof. This is a very strong contract right you have.' The way IBM is responding is very interesting. They haven't filed for an injunction; they haven't filed for the summary judgement enforcement to be dismissed. Are you still saying categorically that there is offending code in the Linux kernel? Yeah. That one is a no-brainer. When you look in the code base and you see line-by-line copy of our Unix System V code - not just the code itself, but comments to the code, titles that were in the comments and humour elements that were in the comments - you see that everything is taken straight across. Everything is exactly the same except they have stripped off the copyright notices and pretended it was just Linux code. There could not be a more straightforward case on the Linux side. Would you actually like to be bought? No. Absolutely no. So there's nobody else lined up immediately? [to sue] Not currently. Quite frankly, there's nothing that he's really saying in this article. It's full of fluff, but there's very little substance when you get down to it. Regarding the quite that discusses the lines of code, I've read a couple of articles from folks that have looked at the code presented by Mr. McBride, and it was only about 80 lines of code and from it there was no possible way of proving that it was in fact System V code and not BSD code or some other code. Yes, it was in both but that proves nothing. Interesting reading, but still get's us no closer to the truth... posted by David | 6/30/2003 11:24:00 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|||||
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home