Pueblo Native wrote:
Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:27:52 -0500
SOTL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Every now and then something is posted that is a must read for ALL computer
programmers.
In the SCO vs IBM case IBM IBM has posted such a document as Amendment A.
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-1034ExA.pdf
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070425224227125
I read Groklaw every day, partially because the outcome could have a
huge affect on both Linux and the entire OpenSource community. At the
moment, I think last Friday's 3 declarations by Novell (Tor Braham who
was the outside attorney who drafted the Novell-Santa Cruz APA, Allison
Amadia, outside attorney who drafted Amendment 2, and David Bradford,
Novell Senior Vice-president, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary).
The issue that is discussed is whether Novell sold the Unix and
Unixware copyrights and patents to Santa Cruz. All 3 state, with
associated documents, that Novell did not and never intended to sell the
copyrights and patents to Santa Cruz.
But, not only as a computer programmer as well as a person that runs a
number of listservs, I am well aware of copyright issues. One time, at
Digital, we were instructed to remove IBM copyrights from header files
and code (OSF). This was legal because IBM had transferred the rights
to OSF members.
Hold on, are you saying SCO still has a case? I thought the judge
pretty much blasted it completely out of the water.
No, it's plainly obvious to all, that SCO's "case" is fraudulent. Last
year, about 2/3 of the claims were tossed out by the judge. IBM has
been working to show what remains is also nonsense. Novell is also
showing that SCO doesn't even have standing to make such claims, should
there have been an infringement.
--
Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
