|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 15 2012 @ 02:33 PM EDT |
After all... just like SCOG, IBM got:
the right to use the [Unix
Sys V] code, and to modify the [Unix Sys V] code and sell the modified [Unix Sys
V] code [in a compilation IBM called AIX].
Using that reasoning,
IBM also owns Unix just as SCOG does.
SCO DID SELL THE UNIX BUSINESS
to another company, UNXIS, after they were in bankruptcy.
I don't
dispute that statement at all. However, I disagree that's what the article
states - and insinuates.
The article did not say that the copyrights
to UNIX were sold to another company, it said that UNIX was sold to another
company.
After the previous statement of:
Unix computer
operating system
With absolutely no mention of the Unix Business
anywhere in the article.... thereby reasonably leading the reader to understand
it was the Unix operating system that was sold. Which could be very confusing
to those not so aware of how the "Unix Field" works if IBM ever sells their
business line of AIX and claims to have "sold the Unix
business".
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.
In any language, one can lie through misrepresentation just as
easily as one can lie through directly incorrect words. If you read the last
two sentences I put in about the APA, you can easily see I'm not exactly
representing things as clearly as I could have thereby leading a reader to the
wrong impression if the reader is so inclined. This - of course - was
deliberately done in those two sentences to prove one can "lie through not
representing the whole truth".
I guess it's time to agree to disagree on
the points:
A: regarding whether or not Tom Harvey misrepresented
things
and
B: which of us has the "more correct view" on the matter of
how the article represented "Unix"
Note: shouting doesn't realy help you
make your point.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Friday, June 15 2012 @ 03:55 PM EDT |
SCO didn't get any disputed rights at all.
Nothing. It ended up with what it had
to start with, the UNIX business and the
right to license it. No one ever challenged
that. What it got in bankruptcy court was
the right to break the contract, its
obligations under the APA, and make sure Novell got
none of the money it was due.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 15 2012 @ 07:51 PM EDT |
"UNIX is a vague and not clearly defined term..."
Well, actually, UNIX is a registered trademark of The
Open Group. They get to define exactly what it means. I don't know if they
would have objections to Mr. Harvey's article, given that it used "Unix" rather
than "UNIX".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 16 2012 @ 06:30 AM EDT |
> SCO DID SELL THE UNIX BUSINESS
Indeed it did. But the statement "Unix was sold to another company"
means something entirely different to that, and is therefore incorrect.
To clarify: I can set up a company selling Ferraris - or trying to, at any rate.
I can later sell that business - the "Ferrari business". But that is a
world away from "selling Ferrari".
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
