From: Adam Flinton 

Paul Ranson wrote:
> "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
> news:3eef03e9{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>>I am relaxed. I am left wondering how come SCO have gone off the deep
>>end like they have. There has to be something under the covers which may
>>well render the value of SCO > 0.
>
>
> Well that's a completely separate and also interesting question. But it
> doesn't bear on whether they have a case in law. And that's what matters.
> Winning the PR war amongst techies isn't going to help there.
>
>
>>Piiiiiiigs iiiiin spaaaaaace is a fairly accurate view of board level
>>SCO it would appear.
>
>
> It's possible they have a case. I hope they don't.
>
>
>>Is it? If SYSV had all this stuff then how come sequent etc even existed?
>
>
> The bits added to Sequent were added to a SysV (or whatever) base.
>

&? Whoever wrote the code owns it.

>
>>If it simply ain't there before you've written it then the room is clean.
>
>
> Nothing in such a closely bound object like a Unix kernel operates in
> isolation. If we were talking about a new component in a micro-kernel you
> might have a point.
>

So then SCO owns solaris & HP-UX & AIX & every other Unix?
Doesn't make sense.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4