What was the reason for "may" in that sentence again?
Linux does contain BSD code in some areas...
What if that code originally belonged to SCO, couldn't they potentially claim ownership as the previous case never reached an actual verdict?
Just wondering,
Because I am not an attorney. :) AT&T USL settled with BSD over their "unauthorized UNIX implementation, and settling usually mean that the plaintiff won't sue again for the same thing. I've never heard of a settlement without it.
What if that code originally belonged to SCO, couldn't they potentially claim ownership as the previous case never reached an actual verdict?
The real problem with this case is that the code originally belonged only to AT&T who licensed it out to many different vendors, who in turn produced a variety of derivative works.
I'm not sure that we can easily conclude the code in question was "originally" in SCO, or more correctly in Xenix. For one thing, BSD predates the existance of Xenix by about two years. This means that BSD was derived from UNIX version 6 whereas Xenix was derived from UNIX version 7. Didn't SCO recently release UNIX V6 under a BSD license? What are the ramifications for BSD and in turn Linux if V6 and V7 have been released by SCO itself under an open source license?
All told it's a complicated case, I do not deny that.