Where's the FUD? No one is claiming that Sun doesn't have rights based on earlier agreements with Novell and AT&T. The issue, which everyone seems to be avoiding here, is that, according to McNealy (see quote above), Sun went back to SCO to modify the earlier agreements. The judge has already declared that SCO didn't seek authorization to do this from Novell. Now Novell is seeking a legal declaration that SCO was obliged to seek authorization from Novell for such amendments. Given that, according to public statements made by McNealy, the agreement with SCO was necessary to open-source Solaris, one wonders where that leaves Sun? Which takes us back to the original question. It's a valid question but I don't know anyone has the answer to it. I think we'll have to wait and see what develops. Maybe it will turn out that Sun bought the rights to cross the Brooklyn Bridge from SCO. Maybe not.
> > This could definitely be called FUD! > > Sun does have full rights on SVr4 and it has been > mentioned that > Sun did not buy SVr4 technology from SCO. > > BTW: Sun did aquire Tarantella (formerly known as > SCO) around 2005. > The company now known as SCO was formerly known as > Caldera Linux. > > Jörg > > -- > EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg > Schilling D-13353 Berlin > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: > http://schily.blogspot.com/ > URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ > ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily > _______________________________________________ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > [email protected] This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
