|
|
| The Caldera Ancient UNIX Release Letter of January 2002 - as text |
 |
|
Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 05:50 AM EST
|
Here is the January 23, 2002 letter from Caldera, allowing use, modification and distribution of Ancient UNIX, "including creating derived binary products created from the source code", as distinguised from System V. Do you see anything that says the code can't be used in GNU/Linux? The PDF is available here.
Dennis Ritchie's page on Computer History Links puts it in context: "The current nominal proprietor of the source code for early research Unix systems (5th Edition through 32V) is named SCO. Today's SCO was previously called Caldera, Caldera having bought the rights from the earlier instance of SCO. This earlier SCO made them available for research and personal use. Until recently, Caldera did as well; now their offer has been withdrawn, presumably for reasons having to do with their suit against IBM. An earlier (2000) version of their license has evidently been withdrawn; this is a local copy. There was also a subsequent, less restrictive, license; its announcement is shown here in PDF format." Of course, whether such an offer can be "withdrawn" is a question. The letter he is referring to as "less restrictive" is the one made available here now as text. You can also find the letter in TriBUG's mirror of The Unix Heritage Society's Ancient Unix archive. TriBUG is "the web site for the Triangle Area BSD Users Group (TriBUG), a users group for people in the Research Triangle Park, North Carolina area who use, advocate, or express interest in BSD and its current derivatives and incarnations. BSD, or Berkeley Software Distribution, is the name of a line of Berkeley Unix releases from the Computer Systems Research Group (CSRG) of the University of California at Berkeley from 1977 to 1995, and continued today through a variety of vendors and variations." As you will recall from the article by Dr Stupid on The BSD Smokescreen, M. Warner Losh, of the FreeBSD core team says that while there is BSD code derived from Unix 6th and 7th edition, as well as 32V, all specifically allowed by this letter, there isn't any System V: "There never was any System V code in any BSD. Ever. The IP claims that USL made its 1992 suit were based on the inclusion of sixth and seventh editions and 32V. While these were the forerunners to System V and System III code bases, they are not specifically System V or System III. Furthermore, SCO released, under its ancient unix program, all sources that predated System III and System V to be freely distributed under a BSD-like license. These specifically included 6th edition, 7th edition and 32V." The letter reproduced as text here confirms what Mr. Losh remembered.
**************************************************
[logo]
CALDERA
[address, phone, fax]
January 23, 2002
Dear UNIX® enthusiasts,
Caldera International, Inc. hereby grants a fee free license that includes the rights use, modify and distribute this named source code, including creating derived binary products created from the source code. The source code for which Caldera International, Inc. grants rights are limited to the following UNIX Operating Systems that operate on the 16-Bit PDP-11 CPU and early versions of the 32-Bit UNIX Operating System, with specific exclusion of UNIX System III and UNIX System V and successor operating systems:
32-bit 32V UNIX
16 bit UNIX Versions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Caldera International, Inc. makes no guarantees or commitments that any source code is available from Caldera International, Inc.
The following copyright notice applies to the source code files for which this license is granted.
Copyright (C) Caldera International Inc. 2001-2002. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
Redistributions of source code and documentation must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. Redistribution in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgment:
This product includes software developed or owned by Caldera International, Inc.
Neither the name of Caldera International, Inc. nor the names of other contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
USE OF THE SOFTWARE PROVIDED FOR UNDER THIS LICENSE BY CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
Very truly yours,
/signed/ Bill Broderick
Bill Broderick
Director, Licensing Services
*UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the US and other countries.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: wharris on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 06:05 AM EST |
This license (specifically the advertising clause) is not compatible with the
GPL.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Seems you're right, but... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 06:20 AM EST
- Seems you're right, but... - Authored by: eggplant37 on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 06:30 AM EST
- Seems you're right, but... - Authored by: wedgetail on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 06:40 AM EST
- Seems you're right, but... (Just click OK) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 08:46 AM EST
- Blank User and Password still works fine - Authored by: ej4711 on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 09:06 AM EST
- Seems you're right, but... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 09:37 AM EST
- Seems you're right, but... - Authored by: DrStupid on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 09:42 AM EST
- Seems you're right, but... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 11:26 AM EST
- nope judt got it now. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 11:41 AM EST
- Password protection is irrelevant... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 12:58 PM EST
- Seems you're right, but... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 11:30 PM EST
- It IS available - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 01:22 AM EST
- Seems you're right, but... - Authored by: JeR on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 07:39 AM EST
- Seems you're right, but... - Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 07:55 AM EST
- The Caldera Ancient UNIX Release Letter of January 2002 - as text - Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 06:37 AM EST
- The Caldera Ancient UNIX Release Letter of January 2002 - as text - Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 07:48 AM EST
- The Caldera Ancient UNIX Release Letter of January 2002 - as text - Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 09:23 AM EST
- Why not GNU/BSD? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 10:25 AM EST
- Could be, but any violation would be of the GPLed code - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 01:04 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: xtifr on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 06:08 AM EST |
The advertising clause (similar to oldBSD license) makes this incompatible with
the GPL, and hence, this code can't be used for GNU/Linux. Of course, if it
turns out that this code is really in the public domain (as suggested by the
judge in the USL v BSDI case) then it could freely be used in Linux. But it
would probably take another lawsuit by someone, somewhere to establish for sure
that it was in the public domain.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 06:11 AM EST |
Ouch!!!! That must hurt, Darl...
Heheheh...
Hihihihi...
MUHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 06:14 AM EST |
Isn't this all rather academic anyway - I thought that SCO were not claiming
that there is Unixware code in Linux, rather that there is AIX and Dynix code in
it ? Or have I missed something ?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 06:52 AM EST |
First off, I would just like to thank PJ and everyone else for a fantastic
site.. oh, and it's my first post, so please forgive me if I have missed
something important...
Anyway, I just had a thought as I was reading through this.
What gives Caldera/SCO the right to release this old source code under this
license and attach the copyright notice, unless they own the copyrights?
As far as I was aware, Novell are claiming that all the copyrights for the
source code still belong to them, as they weren't passed over in the sale of the
Unix business. Or have I missed something that handed over the ancient
copyrights, up to 32V, but not the System V copyrights?
Or, is it that Novell just let this swing as it pretty much knew that the
sources were public domain anyway, from the Judges comments in BSDi case, and if
it contested the ownership it would just be a waste of money and not actually do
anything useful?
Ta,
Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 06:54 AM EST |
Another attempt to make Linux a DMCA violation. Simple SCO are going to claim
that all the public domain code that has been incorperated into linux was taken
from SCO/Caldera and had its copyright notice removed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 07:22 AM EST |
Well, it states that they did release the code for public use, but its not GPL.
I'm kind of concerned about the line stating derivatives of the UNIX code must
state so in their respective license. Even if SCO wouldn't get the Linux
license fees, it raises another question of Linux violating the license, which
could lead to another lawsuit.
Linux advocates are mostly claiming Linux has code developed independently of
UNIX, and trying to make this argument might not be as a good thing as other
breaks this Linux/SCO debate.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 07:46 AM EST |
I realized something this morning. Any code that was written by Santa Cruz
Operation and added to System V or Unixware between 1995 and 2001 would be
copyright Santa Cruz Operation. It seems likely that the copyrights on that code
would have transferred to Caldera. This would mean that SCO may own copyrights
on some of the recent code.
Not that it's going to help them, since it's highly doubtful that there's any
significant infringing code in the Linux kernel. And even if there were, only
distributors would liable for unintentional infringement and end users are
innocent unless they distribute the kernel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Greebo on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 07:46 AM EST |
The last three articles from PJ were posted at :
Monday 11:26pm, Tuesday 04:04am, and Tuesday 05:50am.
The last time i was up this late (early?) a lot of beer and a couple of dubious
clubs were involved!
GET SOME SLEEP!
---
-----------------------------------------
Recent Linux Convert and Scared Cat Owner[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rss on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 07:47 AM EST |
No doubt this license is not GPL compatible and I sincerely hope that none of
this code found its way into Linux.
However - I'm still trying to decipher SCO's novel "method clause"
which I have seen nowhere before and appears to be a brand new hybrid
patent/copyright mongrel concoction - perhaps Groklaw can pass this one by some
IP lawers for some clarity?
SCO's new license:
"UNIX-based Code" shall mean any Code or Method that: (i) in its
literal or non-literal expression, structure, format, use, functionality or
adaptation (ii) is based on, developed in, derived from or is similar to (iii)
any Code contained in or Method devised or developed in (iv) UNIX System V or
UnixWare®, or (v) any modification or derivative work based on or licensed under
UNIX System V or UnixWare."
My interpretation of this clause is that it leans toward Patent Law - in which
case (to my understanding) such "patent rights" are lost once it has
been released into public domain.
In such a case their "patent rights" pertaining to Sytem V would be
void in law where those "non-literal expression, structure, format, use,
functionality" can be traced back to "ancient Unix" which they
released into public domain.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phydaux on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 08:03 AM EST |
Maybe I'm getting confused with all these different versions of code again, but
I thought Novell held all the copyrights (according to Novell at any rate!). So
did Novell not notice that Caldera was giving away something that didn't belong
to it? I assume this is something different, but I can't remember Caldera
getting anything other than what Novell sold to old SCO in the first place.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RealProgrammer on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 08:26 AM EST |
They granted a license, and then (allegedly) withdrew it. They can't un-sell
you a fee-based license just because they change their minds. A no-fee license
is no different. They can stop licensing *new* people, but anyone who downloaded
it under that license still has the right to use, modify, and redistribute the
code as it specifies.
Redistributors such as The Unix Heritage Society are following the terms of the
license they received, which is still in effect. As long as people follow the
license as distributed, there's nothing the new SCO can do about it.
---
(I'm not a lawyer, but I know right from wrong)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: old joe on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 08:50 AM EST |
"There never was any System V code in any BSD. Ever."
While this may be true the converse is not and that could cause a lot of
confusion in impressionable. In their amicus brief for the BSD case the
University of California (UCB) states that there is a lot of BSD code in Unix
SysV!
Back in those days BSD was made up of NET2, owned by UCB, with some ancient Unix
code and so BSD could only be used by Unix licensees (after the BSD settlement
the Unix code was cleaned out and open source BSD was developed).
UCB said USL (Unix Systems Lab = ATT subsidiary that owned Unix till it was sold
to Novell) had put NET2 code into Unix SysV (which was allowed under the UCB
license) but had removed the UCB copyright notices (which was not allowed). UCB
claimed NET2 code makes up about 40%(IIRC) of Unix SysV!
If those copyright notices are still missing then Unix SysV is in breach of
UCB's copyright and every time SCOG find a bit of Unix SysV code in Linux they
will have to prove it wasn't taken from BSD.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: arch_dude on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 09:23 AM EST |
This letter is a license to use SCOG's copyrighted ancient Unix source code.
The license is meaningless unless
1) SCOG has a right to license the copyrighted material.
2) The copyrights are valid.
SCOG probably does have the right: they own the copyrights by valid and
documented transfer from AT&T(USL)->Novell->oldSCO->Caldera(SCOG.)
Copyright can only be transferred by explicit contractual conveyance, and we do
not have copies of all the contracts, but we have no particular reason to doubt
the intent. (This contrasts with the SYS V copyrights which do not appear to
have conveyed from Novell to oldSCO.)
But are the copyrights valid? This in serious doubt. The copyrights were
registered in 1992 by AT&T, but much of this code, including specifically
errno.h and sighal.h, was written and widely distributed without copyright
registration or marking before adoption by the United States of the Berne
convention. The judge in the USL v BSDi indicated that if the point were raised
in court the code would likely be ruled to be in the public domain.
Recall that a copyright registration is simply a claim of authorship. Unlike a
patent, the government makes no attempt to validate the copyright claim: any
dispute occurs in court.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: WayneStPaul on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 09:44 AM EST |
IANAL but I had to attend a copyright class to learn how to put copyrights on
code, an what I remember is that when you write copyright 2001-2002, you are
indicating that the code you are laying claim to was all written in that
timeframe. If the code was written earlier you are illegally extending the
life of the copyright on the earlier code.
My understanding is that this copyright notice could be attached to files that
Caldera modified, in addition to whatever copyright notice previously existed on
the file, and certainly the work as a whole could contain this notice, along
with other previous notices of copyright.
If files from these releases are in Linux, it would be necessary to look at what
organization wrote/modified the files to determine if the “Copyright (C) Caldera
International Inc. 2001-2002. All rights reserved.” Needs to be placed on the
file.
It seems that at least the Uncertainty and Doubt in the SCO case may have
started in the Caldera era.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pb on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 09:52 AM EST |
...note that 32V has fallen into the public domain as well, as I'm sure has been
mentioned here in the past...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 10:05 AM EST |
Honestly, people need to stop mindlessly invoking the "GPL incompatibility
argument" without understanding the facts. Has anyone ever bothered to
actually *read* what RMS has to say on the topic? If (probably) not I suggest
you head on over to
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses and get
some education.
First and foremost, RMS, of all people, lists the "original" BSD
license as a free software license. That's right - 100% free! Even RMS
recognizes that just because something doesn't bear the "GPL"
imprimateur doesn't make it useless and unusable. Anyone ever hear of the
"Artistic License"?
Yes, RMS then goes on to call the original BSD license incompatible. Why? Well,
if you read the accompanying 800-word rant, RMS explains that, in his opinion,
the sentences required by the advertising clause are "obnoxious" and
that the inclusion of such clauses will inevitably lead us to a hellish,
unbearable "long list of different sentences."
That's right - this "incompatibility" is grounded entirely in
conjecture. Not a substantive matter of law, or some esoteric copyright issue,
or on the advice of counsel. An opinion. plain and simple.
Wow, this is a showstopper. It's just pointless, POINTLESS I tell you, to go on!
"Honey, I can't use this Linux thing, it's just got too many sentences in
it." Shut down the presses, cancel the next distribution of Fedora. This
single clause will be the undoing of us all!
Doesn't anyone else see how ridiculous this is? It's just another one of RMS's
eccentricities, like insisting on calling Linux "GNU/Linux" - as if
the semantics make any practical or substantive difference.
The fact is, RMS calls the original BSD license "incompatible" with
the GPL because it rubs him the wrong way philosophically. And that's perfectly
fine! And it's perfectly fine for other people to have the same opinion. But at
least make up your own mind and reach an informed opinion - don't just blindly
accept someone else's gospel (no matter who they are) as the truth.
Are we better off without advertising clauses? Probably. But to stamp it as
"incompatible" and imply that it can't exist side-by-side with other
free licenses is both misleading and factually incorrect.
Fruity[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 10:10 AM EST |
Please don't lower yourself to SCO's level by trivialising matters. If there's
none of this code in Linux, then it's irrelevant and doesn't bear crowing over.
If there's so much as one line of it in Linux, then it's especially ill advised
to crow over it, because:
1) AFAIK, the copyright attribution has been stripped from any code so included,
which is double plus ungood by itself.
2) Doing so voids the license to copy.
3) Ignoring the advertising clause (which you'd have to do to be GPL compliant)
voids the license to copy.
Respect for clauses JUST SUCH AS THIS is at the heart of the GPL. You CANNOT
argue it both ways, and pretending that this license gives carte blanche to
include the code in GPL projects without restriction just supports Darl's
argument that FOSS advocates don't care about copyright laws. Or rather, only
care when it's to their advantage.
Sure, we know that's how Darl works, but please, let's not join him in the
sewer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- ?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 10:18 AM EST
- For shame, PJ - Authored by: Mark Levitt on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 10:21 AM EST
- Get real - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 10:23 AM EST
- Exactly - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 11:02 AM EST
- For shame, Anonymous - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 07:47 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 10:13 AM EST |
"Caldera International, Inc. makes no guarantees or commitments that any
source code is available from Caldera International, Inc."
Aren't they tacitly approving use of the source code, even if it was retrieved
from some other place? Isn't it also an admission that a) they could not
control the code, and b) they didn't even know where all the copies might be
found?
Also:
"The following copyright notice applies to the source code files for which
this license is granted.
Copyright (C) Caldera International Inc. 2001-2002. All rights reserved. "
Is it allowed to put a copyright notice on something other than the item(s) on
which you are claiming copyright, especially if it is true that they didn't have
or couldn't control the source code anyway? Did Caldera even have the right to
release this code? Or to impose a "distant" copyright notice/claim?
Got to look into becoming a lawyer for SCO: don't have to do anything, don't
have to show anything, don't even have to make sense, yet make millions. I must
be in the wrong business :-O
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 11:18 AM EST |
Do you see anything that says the code can't be used in
GNU/Linux?
No, but I also don't see anything that says this is a
perpetual, non-expiring license. IANAL, but doesn't it follow that the
license can be withdrawn at any time?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lyndon on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 11:40 AM EST |
Interesting see which Unices Micr
osofts Services for Unix [MS] was tested with. After spending all that money
they didn't even bother to see if it worked with the SCO flavour! They did
however test Solaris, HP-UX, AIX and Red Hat.... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 06:26 PM EST |
This code cannot be used in Linux because it's licensing terms are
incompatible with the GPL:
GPL FAQ
But
here comes the real tricky part: who's rights are being violated? Caldera's? No.
The rights of copyright holders in Linux, which is licensed under the
GPL.
In other words, if this code found it's way into Linux, Linux
copyright holders could sue, because additional restriction is being imposed on
licensees of Linux, which is not permitted by the GPL. Who's willing to bet
nobody will sue?
There is also another minor point worth mentioning -
this code is not part of Linux. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- GPL incompatible - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 09:47 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: TomWiles on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 06:41 PM EST |
Guys: (and PJ plus all other ladies of course)
One item that has been bothering me is SCO's position that since the GPL is not
legal, then they never released their code to the public.
I ran this past a lawyer friend here in DALLAS and the following is his opinion.
Interesting.
Quotation starts here:
Worse for
Caldera/SCO -- if you distribute under a license that you believe to be
invalid, you've just distributed with no restriction.
Quotation ends here:
Now isn't that an interesting thought!
Tom[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wharris on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 02:35 AM EST |
The comments seem to reflect massive confusion on "the advertising
clause".
Issues on what happens in the documentation is irelevant. Here is the
part that
makes this license GPL-incompatible:
All advertising materials
mentioning features or use of this software must
display the following
acknowledgment:
This product includes software developed or owned by
Caldera International,
Inc.
Several posters have asked
(sometimes rudely) why it matters whether or
not a license is GPL-compatible.
Pamela asks the question "Do you see
anything that says the code can't be used
in GNU/Linux?"; the answer is "Yes,
we do." The Caldera license is significant
in that it sharply limits SCO ability
to claim monetary damages, and demolishes
the argument that their software
was a trade secret. However, the "GPL
incompatibility" means it is impossible
to distribute code which simultaneously
satisfies the GPL (required for
incorporation into the Linux kernel) and also
the Caldera License (required to
copy this code). If Linux includes Caldera
code which is available ONLY under
this license, then it can not be legally
distributed. Fortunately, most of this
code is alreay available under BSD
licenses, and some of it has been explictly
or implicitly placed into the
public domain by AT&T.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LionKuntz on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 10:16 PM EST |
ONE MORE TIME...
Copyrights must be tried in federal court. As of today, February 25th, 2004,
this is a CONTRACT DISPUTE, not a copyrights lawsuit. It is being tried in a
Utah State court.
SCOG has registered copyrights in 2003. Only these exact copyrights which are
already registered can be sued about in federal court. No other
"copyrights" can be the subject of an infringement case.
Very specific files have been itemized in SCOG's legal papers. A motion to add
copyright infringements is pending related to very specific files, but the
motion has not yet decided by the presiding judge.
Only those VERY SPECIFIC files listed as infringing may end up contested in
eventual copyright lawsuit.
Debates and discussions on all of the version of Unix, and all of the files in
Unix, constitutes FUD, causing Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt to readers of this
Groklaw.net website.
Please FOCUS on the issues actually in contest, and restrict yourself from far
afield speculation which only serves as surrogate partisan SCOG agents spreading
FUD.
Note the advice given when you post replies:
"Important Stuff
* Please try to keep posts on topic."
The subject matter of this above article did not warrant the 168 replies made
previous to this one, nor is the public less in Fear, more Certain, and holds
less Doubts, because of abstract debates and discussions not even distantly
related to the actual court case being tried.
If a day went by that there were only 20 researched replies to an article
instead of 300 wandering comments, you will know the public is actually learning
the meaning of the actions and counter-actions of the legal skirmishes. 20
researched messages demonstrates a much higher degree of intelligence than 300
messages, and is not a failure of Groklaw, but a measure of Groklaw's success in
drawing focus to the actual legal issues which deserve audience-participation
researched comments.
Questions for clarification are always welcome, but what possible value is there
from assertions and arguments about hypotheticals which are not part of the case
in court?
ONE MORE TIME...
Copyrights must be tried in federal court. As of today, February 25th, 2004,
this is a CONTRACT DISPUTE, not a copyrights lawsuit. It is being tried in a
Utah State court.
SCOG has registered copyrights in 2003. Only these exact copyrights which are
already registered can be sued about in federal court. No other
"copyrights" can be the subject of an infringement case.
Very specific files have been itemized in SCOG's legal papers. A motion to add
copyright infringements is pending related to very specific files, but the
motion has not yet decided by the presiding judge.
Only those VERY SPECIFIC files listed as infringing may end up contested in
eventual copyright lawsuit.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
