From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: jsnader@ix.netcom.com (Jon Snader)
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 11:25:49 -0500
Subject: [TUHS] Microsoft, SCO, and a certain License
In-Reply-To: <20040229075430.GD49757@wantadilla.lemis.com>
References: <200402292034.03414.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz>
	<20040229075430.GD49757@wantadilla.lemis.com>
Message-ID: <20040229162549.GA90365@ix.netcom.com>

On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 06:24:30PM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> 
> The most important detail is whether it was, in fact, derived from
> OpenBSD.  This sounds very unlikely to me.  If it were the case, why
> would they pay anything to SCO?
> 

I have no idea whether Microsoft based SFU on OpenBSD or not, but
the conventional wisdom on Groklaw, the SCOX Yahoo Finance Board,
and similar domains that are following the SCO issue is that Microsoft's
purchase of the license was a backdoor way of financing an attack on
Linux.  I don't whether that's true either, but it does provide an
answer to your question.

jcs