[NTLUG:Discuss] Whoops! SCO goofed on the NDA?

[Kelledin]

Apparently a German fellow managed to get a look at SCO's 
"evidence" without the NDA restrictions.  He then turned and 
posted some of it on a message board!  His explanation for the 
NDA discrepancy is that there was some negligence on the part of 
SCO's lawyers.

The original post (in German):

http://forum.golem.de/phorum/read.php?f=44&i=1774&t=1716

The Googled translation (difficult to read):

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.golem.de%2Fphorum%2Fread.php%3Ff%3D44%26i%3D1774%26t%3D1716&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

Two key points I take away from this, if my grokking of the 
translation is correct:

1) SCO tampered with their "evidence" by removing date stamps.  I 
wonder why? ;)

2) A lot (all?) of SCO's evidence isn't actually taken from the 
kernel sources, but from mailing-list postings whose 
contributions may or may not have become stock kernel merges.

I'm guessing a certain SCO attorney is never going to work in the 
state of Utah again...

...oh wait, yes he will.  SCO's probably going to be dead in a 
year anyways. ;)

-- 
Kelledin
"If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it, does 
it still cost four figures to fix?"