|
|
|
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, June 15 2012 @ 01:33 PM EDT |
SCO did have certain rights to UNIX, including the right to market it and
collect license fees. They had the right to develop a follow on version of Unix
incorporating the ATT/Novell Unix source code and market that as their product.
They owned the UNIX business as they came to call it.
They did not own the underlying copyrights to the earlier versions of Unix but
then neither did ATT nor Novell own all of those copyrights.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 15 2012 @ 02:03 PM EDT |
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"!
What happened in the SCO v. Novell
case is that the jury found that the copyrights did not transfer, so SCO never
owned the copyrights to UNIX, other than the copyrights to the modifications
that they made after the APA was executed. SCO DID, HOWEVER, GET OTHER RIGHTS.
The right to use the code, and to modify the code and sell the modified code.
There are many different rights to the UNIX operating system, and copyright is
merely one of them. I agree that it is a big right, but it is not all possible
rights. Novell's own witnesses even testified as to what rights SCO received via
the APA in the court case. Perhaps you should review what actually happened
before you accuse others of not having their facts straight.
SCO
eventually ended up in bankruptcy court, where it still remains today. Unix
was sold to another company.
This again is not
incorrect.
SCO DID SELL THE UNIX BUSINESS to another
company, UNXIS, after they were in bankruptcy. The article did not say that the
copyrights to UNIX were sold to another company, it said that UNIX was sold to
another company. UNIX is a vague and not clearly defined term, and that is what
SCO tried to maintain through all of this, but the statement in the article is
not wrong. It is just not as clear and precise as we would like it to be.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 15 2012 @ 05:15 PM EDT |
SCO seems to have been selling that which they don't own, so selling Unix while
you do not own Unix is definitely feasible.
In this case, the buyer knew very well what they bought. When SUN and MS bought
licenses to all SCO copyrights in Unix, apparently they bought an empty set.
Buyer beware.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
