|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 15 2012 @ 01:10 PM EDT |
"the rights" is not "rights".
Though I read that article earlier and thought it was more clearly in the wrong
than it now seems. Could it have been edited?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 15 2012 @ 01:11 PM EDT |
| I smell a sin doctor in the room. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Chromatix on Friday, June 15 2012 @ 01:24 PM EDT |
It's biased, even if it is still technically factual. It *implies* by careful
wording
that the old lies are true.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 15 2012 @ 01:26 PM EDT |
a Canopy company that held the rights to the Unix computer
operating system.
That statement was in the past
tense, and it is correct as far as I can tell.
Unfortunately you
are wrong. If you review what happened in the Case SCOG vs Novell you will
understand the very clear position that:
SCOG never, not even as Santa Cruz,
"held the rights to the Unix computer operating system"!
So the statement
is no correct as you identify. It is incorrect two ways. One direct, and one
indirect. Don't let SCOGs arguments that "Unixware = Unix, and Unix = Unixware"
- they do not as was properly found in the case that decided who owns the
copyrights to Unix. SCOG (through Santa Cruz) got the Unixware copyrights, not
the Unix Copyrights. If you wish to state "Unixware = Unix therefore since SCOG
owns Unixware they own Unix" then you must equally state "AIX = Unix therefore
since IBM owns AIX, they own "Unix". Neither owns the copyrights to Unix, those
belong to Novell.
It is also incorrect because it doesn't bother to
follow up with the decision in the SCOG vs Novell case of which the author was
writing about at the time and is fully aware of the rulings that were made. I
assume he is fully aware because unless he deliberately decided to ignore the
important parts of the lawsuit, he has no excuse for not being aware.
Therefore, to bother with identifying that SCOG "owns Unix" (which is wrong)
without identifying that the Court found that SCOG never owned Unix is also
"lieing through misrepresentation".
SCO eventually ended up in
bankruptcy court, where it still remains today. Unix was sold to another
company.
This again is not
incorrect.
Again, you are mistaken for the same reason as previous.
Repetition helps memory, so I'll say it again:
SCOG owns the copyrights to
UnixWare. Novell owns the copyrights to Unix.
I saw nowhere
in the article that makes any claims that SCO owns UNIX.
This seems
to be blatent misrepresentation considering:
Unix was sold to another
company.
Perhaps if you are going to be a strict wording smith and
claim:
It didn't say "SCOG sold Unix to another company"
Then perhaps
you can clarify which entity discussed in the article likely sold Unix? If
Novell really did sell Unix, perhaps you can identify the press release
identifying that.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 16 2012 @ 12:26 AM EDT |
The article asserted that SCO held "the" rights to Unix. The use of the definite
article implies all rights, not some.
Had "some rights" been the
journalist's intended meaning, the proper wording would have been to substitute
another word for "the", like this perhaps:
"... held
certain rights to the Unix computer operating
system."
- even simply to leave "the" out of the sentence
altogether would be an improvement.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darrellb on Saturday, June 16 2012 @ 07:50 AM EDT |
The simple fact that the discussion of the article occupies 20+ posts is clear
and convincing evidence that the article fails to clearly communicate the facts.
One should never have to disect a journalistic article into bits to understand
the facts presented.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JonCB on Sunday, June 17 2012 @ 01:01 AM EDT |
Either it's innocently biased or deliberately misleading.
Your choice.
Without more detail, "The UNIX operating system" can only
designate ALL of the unix operating system, code,
copyrights, trademarks, the lot.
SCO has never owned either the copyrights or the trademarks.
At best they have owned the right to modify and on-sell
UNIX. If the article had actually talked to Novell for
comment(or was even passingly familiar with the SCO
litigation), that is what they would have found out. So
either they're incompetent and did no research, or they no
and deliberately worded the statement to be arguably true
but false as written.
Note that it's questionable whether Unxis have actually
bought even those rights that SCO did own since, as Novell
brought up at the time, the only way SCO is allowed to sell
them is with explicit approval from Novell, who has not
given that approval. That, however, is a point that may
never end up seeing the light of day.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jjs on Sunday, June 17 2012 @ 08:31 AM EDT |
The - Definitive article, implying ALL rights.
Some - definitely not all.
The article implies TSCOG owned ALL rights - when they owned
some of the documentation and the right to resell some of the
software and market it.
Amazing how a few letters changes meaning.
---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
