|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 15 2012 @ 02:44 PM EDT |
Novell's own witnesses even testified as to what rights
SCO received via the APA in the court case.
Of which most
testimony was discounted by one Jury and two Judges. Leading the Jury and the
two Judges to a different opinion then SCOG as to how to interpret the language
of the APA.
I don't think you understood what I said. What I was
trying to convey was that Novell put their own witnesses on the stand who stated
that all that SCO got was the rights to use the code, modify the code and sell
copies of the the modified code, and not the copyrights. No one discounted that
testimony. The testimony that was discounted by the jury and the judges was the
testimony by SCO's witnesses as to the copyrights supposedly transferring.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: celtic_hackr on Friday, June 15 2012 @ 06:44 PM EDT |
IBM does indeed own many rights to Unix, and especially to the variants they own
and have purchased. They have a fully paid up, perpetual, non-revocable license
to the core Unix OS. They have rights of redistribution of their variants of
Unix. They own all the rights to the code they've written. So IBM certainly owns
*some* Unix rights.
So in the same vague way that SCO owned "the rights" to Unix. So does
IBM. It's a factual, if evasive statement. As long as they don't say they own
"all the rights" to Unix.
But, then no one can actually say they own "all the rights" to Unix,
because no "one" organization does, nor has anyone for a very long
time. AT&T owned some, Berkeley owned some. Sperry, IBM, Unisys, DEC and
others all owned some.
Only AT&T ever owned it all, and then only briefly. They in effect
limited-opensourced it.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
