Might even be because one of the SCO people contributed to the Linux code. But I think this has all been hashed out before. Basically, it proves nothing. Mike Hicks said: > Not much can be said yet about SCO's claims yet. The analysts who have > seen the examples of supposed theft are under non-disclosure agreements, > so they can't talk much about it. Slashdot reported that SCO's evidence > is just 80 lines of code, which is not even a drop in the bucket of > Linux source (something in the neighborhood of 2500000 lines). > > A thought I just had: it's possible that both chunks of code look the > same because the authors were working from a reference implementation of > a driver or other idea. Maybe the actual origin of the source code is > the public domain... > > -- > _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ The computer made me do it > / \/ \(_)| ' // ._\ / - \(_)/ ./| ' /(__ > \_||_/|_||_|_\\___/ \_-_/|_|\__\|_|_\ __) > [ Mike Hicks | http://umn.edu/~hick0088/ | mailto:hick0088 at tc.umn.edu ] _______________________________________________ TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.mn-linux.org tclug-list at mn-linux.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list