Re: [TUHS] Microsoft, SCO, and a certain License

Microsoft and SCO have been very coy about what it is that Microsoft actually licensed. I believe the closest they have come to explaining it can be found in a Byte interview by Trevor Marshall -- http://www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall.html where Chris Sontag of SCO is quoted as saying that Microsoft merely licensed an "applications interface layer." I take this to mean they are probably talking about header files like errno.h, signal.h, etc. I believe that Microsoft development products have iterations of these and they only have Microsoft copyright notices in them (no AT&T or BSD notices). SFU would have them as well, although I'm not sure what copyright notices are on those. SCO claims that the lack of a copyright notices violates the USL vs. BSDi settlement. Of course, this claim is extremely tenuous (since Microsoft's headers files origination likely predates the settlement and were derived independently from public sources). In the end, I strongly suspect this was a way for Microsoft to funnel money to SCO to attack Linux as opposed to Microsoft claims of "respecting Intellectual Property Rights."