From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261915AbTEBORC (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2003 10:17:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262912AbTEBORC (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2003 10:17:02 -0400 Received: from bristol.phunnypharm.org ([65.207.35.130]:13786 "EHLO bristol.phunnypharm.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261915AbTEBORB (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2003 10:17:01 -0400 Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 10:06:03 -0400 From: Ben Collins To: Chris Friesen Cc: The Spirit of Open Source , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Did the SCO Group plant UnixWare source in the Linux kernel? Message-ID: <20030502140602.GH543@phunnypharm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > "Chris Sontag: We are using objective third parties to do comparisons of > our UNIX System V [SCO-owned Unix] source code and Red Hat as an example. > We are coming across many instances where our proprietary software has > simply been copied and pasted or changed in order to hide the origin of our > System V code in Red Hat. This is the kind of thing that we will need to > address with many Linux distribution companies at some point." This almost sounds like they are pointing to userspace code rather than kernel code. I know Redhat and other dists put patches on their kernels, but I seriously doubt it's anything like retrofiting UnixWare code. It's more like supporting newer hardware, performance tweaking, and such. -- Debian - http://www.debian.org/ Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/ Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/ Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/