Re: SCO's "proof"

Richard B. Johnson
2003-08-19T20:04:08Z

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, J.A. Magallon wrote:

>
> On 08.19, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 09:37:13AM -0400, Brandon Stewart wrote:
> > > compliments of "d1rkinator" from yahoo finance message board:
> > >
> > > The code SCO finds offending:
> > >
> > > www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-19.08.03-000/imh0.jpg
> > > www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-19.08.03-000/imh1.jpg
> >
> > Why the heck is ia64 inventing its own mutex spinlocks?
> >
>
> They can't even copy code to a slide:
>
> if (size==0)
> return)((ulong_t NULL);
>
> That does not compile...
>
> --
> J.A. Magallon <jamagallon@able.es> \ Software is like sex:
> werewolf.able.es \ It's better when it's free
> Mandrake Linux release 9.2 (Cooker) for i586
> Linux 2.4.22-rc2-jam1m (gcc 3.3.1 (Mandrake Linux 9.2 3.3.1-1mdk))

Well it certainly looks as though they copied Linux. At least
they copied the comments okay. It also looks as though the
`evidence` was additionally tampered with because, what is
alleged to be appropriated code will not even compile because
of the tampering.

In the United States Courts, one cannot simply hand-copy some
so-called evidence. This so-called evidence will never make
it to court. If this is being used as evidence, this is prima-
facie evidence of fraud.

Don't do the editing for them. Just let them make their phony
evidence. If this continues, somebody will lose their license
to practice law, and sombody may even end up in jail.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.20 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Note 96.31% of all statistics are fiction.