[Talk] SCO news - analysts says they saw UNIX code in Linux

[Adam Donnison]

Forget SCO, the changes had to be registered in the Linux
revision control system, and that is far less likely to be
tampered with.  What needs to happen is that _both_ revision
control logs are compared, they will give time and date and
person responsible.  Then it becomes an action against
an individual, which I suspect is why SCO doesn't want to
do it.

ADam

Con Zymaris wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 09:43:14AM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> 
>>On Tuesday, 10 June 2003 at  9:12:21 +1000, David Purdue wrote:
>>
>>>See the story at:
>>>
>>>http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/09/1055010912770.html
>>>
>>>A couple of non-programmers from a couple of analyst firms were
>>>shown two blocks of code and say that 80 lines of code and comments
>>>were the same.
>>
>>Hmm.  If they're identical, I don't suppose you have to be a
>>programmer, especially if they contain comments.
>>
>>
>>>What they did not see were any change control records to establish
>>>where this block of code came from.
>>
>>You'd think that SCO would want to make that clear, wouldn't you?
> 
> 
> I don't believe that it is possible to certify that the source revision
> system hasn't been tampered with or conjured into artificial existence.
> How, therefore, can SCO prove this point?
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Con Zymaris
> EDITOR
> AUUGN - Australian Unix Users Group Newsletter


-- 
Adam Donnison                                  email: adam at saki.com.au
Saki Computer Services Pty. Ltd.
93 Kallista-Emerald Road                        phone: +61 3 9752 1512
THE PATCH  VIC 3792    AUSTRALIA                fax:   +61 3 9752 1098