> 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.
I don't think you are trying to spread FUD. But the question you are asking is
something (b/c it involves legal issues) most of the forum participants, the
majority of them software developers or engineers, don't feel comfortable
answering. You should respect their reservations.
For those of us who happen to be in the pertinent profession, what you consider
a big deal is indeed a trivial matter that we handle everyday (& won't care to
comment). A simple software licensing agreement can run hundred of pages. As
the esteemed AlanC exemplified in a separate thread, every software code Sun's
developers submitted for external distribution must be approved by Sun's
in-house lawyers. You will be out of your mind to think that Sun's legal
department & outside legal counsels have not thoroughly thought through this
issue. (& Believe me, it makes you sleep better knowing that your servers are
running Solaris, both technically and legally speaking.)
If you are really interested in this issue, as a layman, you can try to find
out what the following terms mean: "res judica", "necessary third party
defendant", BFP ("bona fide purchaser"), "copyright vs. patent" (if you are
obsessed with the Microsoft/MP3 case) and re-ask your question in a more
appropriate forum. I can't speak for anyone else but I don't this this is a
Slashdot. Additionally, you should also try to find out how many SuSE licenses
Sun sold for Novell.
But the gist of this issue is, the Sun-SCO licensing agreement involved a very
minor technical matter. Many of the forum participants have been trying to
tell you exactly that, but you keep ignoring their answers. You may not be
spreading FUD, but your behavior is close to being a troll.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
