Jerry Feldman wrote:
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.
You might want to do some reading on Groklaw about this. One thing the
court made clear, was that since the original SCO didn't have the money
to buy Unix outright, Novell came up with a license deal, where they
retained the copyrights among other things, until the new SCO forwarded
enough license revenue to complete the deal. This means that had
sufficient revenue come from SCO, all rights would have been transferred
to them. So, they did not buy a "bill of goods". As for the derivative
works, what SCO claims greatly exceeds what the original arrangement was
with AT&T, which AT&T verified in a letter to IBM and elsewhere. SCO
then tried to retroactively and unilaterally claim much more.
T
--
Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
