4 ms·

True, but the bit about interfaces is also not comparable between the two. There wasn't a lot of commonality between openserver and IBM (RedHat) Linux. It's not

True, but the bit about interfaces is also not comparable between the two. There wasn't a lot of commonality between openserver and IBM (RedHat) Linux. It's not like the libraries on one system would run on the other. SCO's seminal allegation was that code was copied between the two, but they never produced evidence. Likely, because there was none. The case was eventually dropped when it was determined SCO couldn't even make a claim to begin with and the rightful copyright holder, Novell, stated they didn't believe SCOs claims. Then SCO went bankrupt and the whole situation just kind of quietly went away.

kragen 7y ago
They did eventually show some “code”, namely signal.h and a couple of other similar files. However, thanks to iBCS, it is actually possible to run SCO Unix binaries on Linux, and has been since last millennium. That's why interfaces like signal.h shouldn't be copyrightable: the goal of copyright Law is not to give SCO control over code their customers write.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Not quite. The case is still active (!) in the Federal court in Salt Lake City. The judge lifted the stay on the case on May 14, 2018. Since then, absolutely nothing has happened. But the case has not "gone away" so far as I can tell.