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