In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0310011445170.6442-100000@c941211-a>,
Joe Dunning <joedunning*NOSPAM*1234@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Tony Earnshaw wrote:
>
>> FyRE wrote:
>>
>> > What Does Darl Get Out Of It?
>>
>> Once one's sussed everything and asked oneself "why?" and gawped at
>> McBride's temerity (read up on SCO's ridiculous website and license
>> conditions, seen what happened to Dupaco in Holland, asked oneself what
>> the Linux kernel people will say and do, etc.), one will have come to
>> the Slashdot conclusion long ago. The subject isn't worth discussing any
>> longer.
>
>What's more, SGI has now published an analysis of SysV code vs. Linux.
>Conclusion: there are only insignificant snippets that are probably there
>legally, but in any case not enough to sustain a copyright violation case.
>
>http://oss.sgi.com/letter_100103.txt

>It's interesting to see SGI publishing this: they have full access to the
>SysV code and are hence well placed to do such an analysis.

And today SCO announced they are terminating SGI's license - and
SGI says they have a permanent license.

This is getting out of hand.

Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com