On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:56:07 -0400 James Knott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Still, you'd have to accept SCO's bizarre definition of derivate works, > one that apparently doesn't stick to stuff they develop from someone > else's IP. I don't see the definition being bizarre. It is essentially the language in the original AT&T license not the SCO license. IBM signed the license long before AT&T sold Unix to Novell. > Then there's the matter of copyrights. Since they don't own > them, they can't sue over them, at least not without Novell's approval. In the SCO vs. IBM case the copyright issues are moot, first because of Judge Wells' order because SCO was not specific enough, and secondly because Novell has already waived them. Actually, it was Novell's claim and waiver that caused SCO to add the "slander of title" against Novell in the first case. Actually, I think that SCO actually thought they owned the copyrights, and either they were sold a bill of goods by the Santa Cruz Operation, or they made a very poor assumption when they acquired Santa Cruz's Unix division. In any case, we'll just need to wait until there are some additional rulings in the IBM case since there is an August 31st deadline in that case. -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
