Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Nobody here has yet explained how Sun managed to legitimately
open-source code without getting permission from Novell.
And no one here is likely to divulge the contents of confidential
contracts signed between Sun and other companies either. Sun's
lawyers and
Al [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[b]McNeely: We had to pay SCO more money so we could open the code. [/b]
Nobody here has yet explained how Sun managed to legitimately open-source
code without getting permission from Novell. The fact that SCO agreed to this
and Sun paid them money to do so
Well, I guess we'll all have to wait and see what happens.
In the latest court filing Novell states:
At trial, Novell will seek a declaration that SCO was also obligated to seek
Novell's approval prior to entering into new SVRX licenses or amendments to
SVRX licenses that that SCO therefore
Al [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I guess we'll all have to wait and see what happens.
In the latest court filing Novell states:
At trial, Novell will seek a declaration that SCO was also obligated to seek
Novell's approval prior to entering into new SVRX licenses or amendments to
SVRX
Where's the FUD? No one is claiming that Sun doesn't have rights based on
earlier agreements with Novell and ATT. 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
Where's the FUD? No one is claiming that Sun doesn't
have rights based on earlier agreements with Novell
and ATT. 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
What makes you think Novell's legal team have as little subtlety and smarts as
SCO's? There are other options.
[b]Bruce Lowry, Novell Spokesman, Aug 2007[/b]
We're not interested in suing people over Unix,
Novell spokesman
Bruce Lowry said. We're not even in the Unix
business anymore.
What makes you think Novell's legal team have as
little subtlety and smarts as SCO's? There are other
options.
The SCO suit caused a havoc, b/c the authorship ( thus the copyright
ownership) is a big mess in Linux. Linus never bothered to keep track of who
owned what, and/or verify
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 10:14 -0700, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
Side note, $14million seems an awful lot for just
some drivers.
Matthew
At that time it was well accepted that the (then) big bad Sun Micro
used the licensing fee as a pretense to underwrite part of SCO's legal
expenses
Side note, $14million seems an awful lot for just
some drivers.
Matthew
At that time it was well accepted that the (then) big bad Sun Micro used the
licensing fee as a pretense to underwrite part of SCO's legal expenses against
Linux. Microsoft paid much more (I believe it was $50
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 10:25 -0700, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
What makes you think Novell's legal team have as
little subtlety and smarts as SCO's? There are other
options.
The SCO suit caused a havoc, b/c the authorship ( thus the copyright
ownership) is a big mess in Linux. Linus never
[b]McNeely: We had to pay SCO more money so we could open the code. [/b]
Nobody here has yet explained how Sun managed to legitimately open-source code
without getting permission from Novell. The fact that SCO agreed to this and
Sun paid them money to do so seems to be irrelevant in light of
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 14:26 -0700, Al wrote:
[b]McNeely: We had to pay SCO more money so we could open the code.
[/b]
Nobody here has yet explained how Sun managed to legitimately
open-source code without getting permission from Novell. The fact that
SCO agreed to this and Sun paid them
Al wrote:
Nobody here has yet explained how Sun managed to legitimately open-source
code without getting permission from Novell.
And no one here is likely to divulge the contents of confidential
contracts signed between Sun and other companies either. Sun's
lawyers and execs know the
Nobody here has yet explained how Sun managed to legitimately open-source
code without getting permission from Novell. The fact that SCO agreed to this
and Sun paid them money to do so seems to be irrelevant in light of the
recent court decision.
What does Novell have to do with Sun's
Al wrote:
[b]McNeely: We had to pay SCO more money so we could open the code. [/b]
Nobody here has yet explained how Sun managed to legitimately open-source
code without getting permission from Novell. The fact that SCO agreed to this
and Sun paid them money to do so seems to be irrelevant
[b]Darl McBride, SCO CEO, April 2005[/b]:
We have seen what Sun plans to do with OpenSolaris and we have no problem with
it. What they're doing protects our Unix intellectual property rights.
[b]Jack Messman, Novell CEO, in November 2004 on Sun's plans to open source
Solaris[/b]:
We are
[b]Bruce Lowry, Novell Spokesman, Aug 2007[/b]
We're not interested in suing people over Unix, Novell spokesman
Bruce Lowry said. We're not even in the Unix business anymore.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,135959-c,unix/article.html
On 8/16/07, Al [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[b]Darl McBride,
On 8/17/07, Brandorr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[b]Bruce Lowry, Novell Spokesman, Aug 2007[/b]
We're not interested in suing people over Unix, Novell spokesman
Bruce Lowry said. We're not even in the Unix business anymore.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,135959-c,unix/article.html
While
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 06:34 +0530, S h i v wrote:
On 8/17/07, Brandorr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[b]Bruce Lowry, Novell Spokesman, Aug 2007[/b]
We're not interested in suing people over Unix, Novell spokesman
Bruce Lowry said. We're not even in the Unix business anymore.
On 8/17/07, Kaiwai Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 06:34 +0530, S h i v wrote:
On 8/17/07, Brandorr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[b]Bruce Lowry, Novell Spokesman, Aug 2007[/b]
We're not interested in suing people over Unix, Novell spokesman
Bruce Lowry said.
Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Michael Huff wrote:
Is it that simple?
Sun paid money to SCO to license IP (of some form) relating to Unix -why
would they do that if they already owned the rights to it?
Insurance? While I don't know exactly what they did
Hello,
since I´ m not very well informed about the history of Unix, I just wanted to
ask: Could Novell come up one day and say parts of Solaris is ours ?
Thanks in advance?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing
On 8/14/07, Dennis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
since I´ m not very well informed about the history of Unix, I just wanted to
ask: Could Novell come up one day and say parts of Solaris is ours ?
Thanks in advance?
No. Sun's license goes way back to ATT days with System V release 4.
Is it that simple?
Sun paid money to SCO to license IP (of some form) relating to Unix -why would
they do that if they already owned the rights to it?
Since SCO had no right to enter into the deal, and had no authority to assign
rights, wouldn't that essentially invalidate the deal -and
Giles Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/14/07, Dennis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
since I´ m not very well informed about the history of Unix, I just wanted
to ask: Could Novell come up one day and say parts of Solaris is ours ?
Thanks in advance?
No. Sun's license goes
Is it that simple?
Sun paid money to SCO to license IP (of some form) relating to Unix -
why would they do that if they already owned the rights to it?
At the time this was said to be a license for (Intel)
specific device drivers.
Since SCO had no right to enter into the deal, and had no
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Michael Huff wrote:
Is it that simple?
Sun paid money to SCO to license IP (of some form) relating to Unix -why
would they do that if they already owned the rights to it?
Insurance? While I don't know exactly what they did with SCO, in a world
of litigation, a little
Michael,
Since SCO had no right to enter into the deal, and had no authority to
assign rights, wouldn't that essentially invalidate the deal -and therefore
leave Sun as vulnerable as they were before the made that agreement -maybe
even more so now that they've distributed code that they
On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 09:18 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Michael,
Since SCO had no right to enter into the deal, and had no authority to
assign rights, wouldn't that essentially invalidate the deal -and therefore
leave Sun as vulnerable as they were before the made that agreement -maybe
30 matches
Mail list logo
