There is a link in the article to a separate post: https://www.elastic.co/blog/dear-search-guard-users-includin.... I think this is what it is referring to.

I read that article and it is very redolent of what SCO argued back in the day. If they had actual proof, they would take legal action against the author of that plugin.

They did in September 2019. Is literally the first sentence of the linked article and it links to https://www.elastic.co/blog/dear-search-guard-users.

I am not sure of the outcome.

> I read that article [...] If they had actual proof, they would take legal action against the author of that plugin.

The first sentence of that article:

> Back on September 4th, we filed a lawsuit against floragunn GmbH, the makers of Search Guard, a security plugin for Elasticsearch

Yeah? SCO sued a bunch of people too. They haven't won, though.

Elastic and Floragunn are unrelated to SCO.

They share a similarity: the Floragunn litigation is unresolved (and clearly Floragunn continues to distribute their plugin). SCO, too, failed to resolve their litigation favorably to SCO.

That is a very tenuous connection. Floragunn has not resolved the litigation in their favour, either.

If we are going off similarities, Napster also continued to distribute their software while their lawsuit involving the RIAA was unresolved. The court still ruled against them eventually.

That's right in the article.