Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: rbowman Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Recent history of vi Date: 16 Nov 2025 03:20:29 GMT Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <10eqid5$3du22$1@dont-email.me> <10f0f7i$12iu1$1@dont-email.me> <8i7eulxq0m.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <2ovhulxeph.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <7o2dnTpBfZPLCYv0nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <10f9iud$3dmon$1@dont-email.me> <10fb6o8$3r51s$1@dont-email.me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net 2XFly8y3qlm3WS9uWpeX+QNEtdGDKIhLFIssJmVFQuXRDDEv79 Cancel-Lock: sha1:x4n1XZnBtySvcLJWUPxEMsNB94g= sha256:2JjXuTpMJz96GS1/emN8JHb4WFbnSpTbxQY/jYyGISQ= User-Agent: Pan/0.162 (Pokrosvk) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:77615 alt.folklore.computers:232179 On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 00:43:50 +0000, Nuno Silva wrote: > How did it escape the SCO mess? Wouldn't such a release from Caldera > rely on Santa Cruz Operation having gotten ownership of the code from > Novell? And if I'm reading Wikipedia right,[0] Novell still having the > rights played a role in the later mess involving the SCO Group? It's tangled and you would have to be a lawyer to fully understand it. Novell argued they had retained the coyprights when they sold whatever they sold to the Santa Cruz Operation. Novell had inherited the suit between Unix System Laboratories and Berkeley Software Design but that had been resolved peacefully. I guess it's the difference between a source code license allowing modification and distribution versus copyrights. https://mises.org/library/book/against-intellectual-property It's somewhat heavy reading but Kinsella makes some good arguments against coypright.