@p SCO claimed "ownership" of many things, but as a court found out, that was all a lie.

SCO was an attack against GNU, but if SCO actually named the GNU and informed many people of GNU's existence, their and microsoft's plans would be ruined.

SCO spent ages looking through Linux's source to find copying of Unix kernels and all they found was some lines in time.h (memory, might be a different header file) that by coincidence were similar - and even the judge said "Is this all you got?".

I believe SCO actually distributed a version of GNU/Linux, so even if they had valid patents (they didn't), they had agreed to license them under the terms of the GPLv2.


microsoft is of course continuing to never name the GNU in places where it knows most people will read (the only time I've seen them naming the GNU is part of a LGPLv2.1 & LGPLv3 exception for reverse engineering in the windows copyright notice - as they know almost nobody reads that) - the most recent case where microsoft blacklists the execution of old versions of GNU GRUB on the computers they infect and of course the CVE says "Linux GRUB2 boot loader".