From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S262565AbTHUKXE (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Thu, 21 Aug 2003 06:23:04 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262574AbTHUKXE
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Thu, 21 Aug 2003 06:23:04 -0400
Received: from mail3.ithnet.com ([217.64.64.7]:38807 "HELO
	heather-ng.ithnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP
	id S262565AbTHUKXB (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 21 Aug 2003 06:23:01 -0400
X-Sender-Authentication: SMTPafterPOP by <info@euro-tv.de> from 217.64.64.14
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 12:22:59 +0200
From: Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com>
To: Stuart Longland <stuartl@longlandclan.hopto.org>
Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, davidsen@tmr.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SCO's "proof"
Message-Id: <20030821122259.677a33e9.skraw@ithnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <3F4437E7.2090307@longlandclan.hopto.org>
References: <3F422809.7080806@yahoo.com>
	<20030819145213.GC5582@gallifrey>
	<20030819150137.GA22521@gevaerts.be>
	<lt4r0du0t3.fsf@colina.demon.co.uk>
	<bi0eij$f13$1@gatekeeper.tmr.com>
	<200308201846.h7KIk6uu013871@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
	<3F4437E7.2090307@longlandclan.hopto.org>
Organization: ith Kommunikationstechnik GmbH
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:09:27 +1000
Stuart Longland <stuartl@longlandclan.hopto.org> wrote:

> This case is getting more rediculous with each day...lfmao
> 
> Oh dear, it seems that our /comments/ are alike.  Hrmm.  Pity the
> compiller doesn't take any notice of them, and therefore, I don't see
> the evidence that the /code/ has been stolen.  Also, as others have
> quite rightfully pointed out, it doesn't even compile -- syntax errors
> galore.
> 
> Lets hope some people in the legal profession have some C knowledge --
> or at least have the sense to go directly to the kernel source on
> kernel.org rather than relying on what SCO provides.

As the only case that SCO has filed up to now is against IBM (as far as I know)
you should be aware of the possibility that this proof presented is only a
piece of FUD to distract from the real issues. IBM has never touched this
source, so it is irrelevant to the case.

Regards,
Stephan