Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on March 28, 2005 08:45 PM
The article says that DC and Autozone were both sued for running Linux which contains SCO's code. Perhaps this is what SCO say, but weren't the original reasons somewhat different?
I thought DC were sued for not replying to an over-broad software audit request in time - nothing to do with whether or not Linux was owned by SCO.
I thought Autozone were sued for running SCO application code and libraries on top of Linux, not for running Linux itself. Even then, the original claim was based on "They ported their systems over too quickly, so we think they must have cheated" rather than hard evidence. It would be like Microsoft suing for running Word on Wine instead of on Windows. Again, nothing to do with whether or not Linux itself is infringing.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
DC and Autozone - not about Linux as such IIRC
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 28, 2005 08:45 PMI thought DC were sued for not replying to an over-broad software audit request in time - nothing to do with whether or not Linux was owned by SCO.
I thought Autozone were sued for running SCO application code and libraries on top of Linux, not for running Linux itself. Even then, the original claim was based on "They ported their systems over too quickly, so we think they must have cheated" rather than hard evidence. It would be like Microsoft suing for running Word on Wine instead of on Windows. Again, nothing to do with whether or not Linux itself is infringing.
#