Blake Stowell said Linux ABI is not infringing!
From: Joe Dunning (joe_at_blahblah.invalid)
Date: 12/26/03
- Previous message: dpuryear_at_usa.net: "Re: Next on the hit list....Novell!"
- Next in thread: JamesDad: "Re: Blake Stowell said Linux ABI is not infringing!"
- Reply: JamesDad: "Re: Blake Stowell said Linux ABI is not infringing!"
- Reply: Tony Lawrence: "Re: Blake Stowell said Linux ABI is not infringing!"
- Reply: Giulio Orsero: "Re: Blake Stowell said Linux ABI is not infringing!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:53:58 GMT
Here's an interesting quote, From Mozillaquest magazine, Feb 5, 2003:
MozillaQuest Magazine: Regarding binfmt_coff, abi-util, lcall7,
abi-svr4, abi-sco; are any of these modules SCO IP?
Blake Stowell: No, none of the code in the Linux ABI modules contains
SCO IP. This code is under the GPL and it re-implements publicly
documented interfaces. We do not have an issue with the Linux ABI
modules.
What are SCO claiming now: that the ABI code in Linux violates SCO's IP.
Once again, I ask the fence-sitters: at what point do you actively
DISBELIEVE SCO's claims? Surely any doubt that SCO's management are
lying has to have gone now?
- Previous message: dpuryear_at_usa.net: "Re: Next on the hit list....Novell!"
- Next in thread: JamesDad: "Re: Blake Stowell said Linux ABI is not infringing!"
- Reply: JamesDad: "Re: Blake Stowell said Linux ABI is not infringing!"
- Reply: Tony Lawrence: "Re: Blake Stowell said Linux ABI is not infringing!"
- Reply: Giulio Orsero: "Re: Blake Stowell said Linux ABI is not infringing!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]