It’s also not clear when the code that SCO claims was copied was originally written. I suspect that it is more recent than 14 years. (Partly because I suspect that it may have been Linux code moved into SCO and not vice versa.)

The comments about copyright extension at the behest of Disney are probably true, but they’re not relevant for the SCO case, because there really is no legitimate SCO code in Linux to begin with. The claims being made by SCO are so ridiculous that they’ll be thrown out if this ever gets to court. Presumably, SCO just wants to be bought out by IBM on the theory that IBM will decide it’s less costly to fight the case than to pay the blackmail.

On another subject, it’s sort of quaint seeing people follow the Stallman “GNU/Linux” naming religion. Why don’t you just call it Linux? Calling it “GNU/Linux” is like always referring to Windows as “Microsoft Windows”. Sure, Microsoft (Stallman) want you to do that, and it’s more precise and more descriptive that way (and it gives credit right there in the name itself), but as a name it’s a horrible loser because it’s just too verbose. “GNU/Linux” in prose is about as stilted as an MS press release where it’s always “Microsoft Windows” and “Microsoft Office”, always spelled out in full.

Ah—who cares anyway, just have another beer and don’t worry. Bush will take care of all!!!!

Actually this site: SCO is a great place to keep up.