"In other words, the GPL itself covers situations where code is improperly or accidentally contributed to the GPL without proper authorization (sic) of the true copyright holder."
But *they* released the Linux code under the GPL in their distribution. So, *if* there is any part that is copyrighted by SCO they can't make any claims on that because *they* released it on the terms of the GPL.
I heard of a virus that converted all chars into a kind of draw that made text unreadable. Wait!, it seem to afect chinesse people as well!. Wait!, it's not a virus,... ok... forget it.
Slashdot Mirror
why would they do that? there's no need to go to the stores. just download what you need and if it doesn't suit you write it.
"In other words, the GPL itself covers situations where code is improperly or accidentally contributed to the GPL without proper authorization (sic) of the true copyright holder."
But *they* released the Linux code under the GPL in their distribution. So, *if* there is any part that is copyrighted by SCO they can't make any claims on that because *they* released it on the terms of the GPL.
I heard of a virus that converted all chars into a kind of draw that made text unreadable. Wait!, it seem to afect chinesse people as well!. Wait!, it's not a virus, ... ok... forget it.
Microsoft's time to patch a remote hole where the attacker can gain complete access to your computer: two months.
Open Source's time to patch a much less serious bug where the attacker can merely crash your computer: three days.
Microsoft providing us arguments to make fun of closed-source users: priceless
> First of all, let's point out here that what this little story refers to as
> "hackers" are actually "pirates".
I don't agree with you on the term "pirates" to qualify people who only steal TV.
Pirates were also killers and rapers and I think they don't fit in that category.