What SCO says Perens said:
'The second development was an admission by Open Source leader Bruce Perens that UNIX System V code 
(owned by SCO) is, in fact, in Linux, and it shouldn't be there. Mr. Perens stated that there is 
"an error in the Linux developer's process" which allowed UNIX System V code that "didn't belong in 
Linux" to end up in the Linux kernel (source: ComputerWire, August 26, 2003). Mr. Perens continued 
with a string of arguments to justify the "error in the Linux developer's process." However, 
nothing can change the fact that a Linux developer on the payroll of Silicon Graphics stripped 
copyright attributions from copyrighted System V code that was licensed to Silicon Graphics under 
strict conditions of use, and then contributed that source code into Linux as though it was clean 
code owned and controlled by SGI. This is a clear violation of SGI's contract and copyright 
obligations to SCO. We are currently working to try and resolve these issues with SGI.'

What the article actually says!

'The other SCO code snippet Perens walks through had to do with memory allocation functions in Unix 
System V and Linux. He says there was, in fact, "an error in the Linux developer's process," 
specifically a programmer at SGI, and he says while the Linux community had the legal right to this 
code, it didn't belong in Linux and was therefore removed.'

Ah, and finally an sensible definition of derived code. 

"Under SCO's theory," says Perens, "if any code created by a Unix licensee ever touches Unix, SCO 
owns that code from then on, and can deny its creator the right to make use of it for any other 
purpose. SCO's legal theory fails, because they ignore the fact that if a work doesn't contain some 
portion of SCO's copyrighted code, it is not a derived work."

Like sand through an hourglass ...

Windows 95 - A 
32 bit extension to a 
16 bit shell for a
 8 bit operating system designed for
 4 bit computers by a
 2 bit company that can't stand
 1 bit of competition.