Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 6th Dec 2003 19:42 UTC, submitted by Tom Curtis
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Thanks for the answer, but that leads to another question.
You stated,
"But that's not what SCO is going for. They want to play the card that if there is infringing code in the kernel, the whole kernel now belongs to SCO, even if they remove the infringing code."
Isn't that kind of like saying: While they weren't looking SCO think IBM stole one of SCO's books and stuck the book on the back seat of the downtown transit bus, which belongs to the public, so, now, SCO gets to keep the whole public owned transit bus.
Isn't that about the same scenario?
I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind this. Thank you.