Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Claims IBM/SGI Licenses are Revokable

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the no-take-backs dept.

shadow099 writes "SCO claims in an open letter writen by Blake Stowell, Director Public Relations SCO, that the Unix licenses to IBM and SGI can be revoked. " This is just the latest volley in the ongoing circus. It keeps getting funnier!

4 of 378 comments (clear)

  1. "Irrevokable" by cperciva · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IBM/SGI's licenses are "fully paid up and irrevokable". That's specific legal language which means "SCO can't demand more licensing fees, and it can't pull the license on a whim". That in no way restricts the ability of SCO to revoke a license which has already been invalidated by IBM or SGI violating its terms.

    I'm not saying that IBM or SGI has violated the terms of their UNIX licenses; but if they have, that "fully paid up and irrevokable" language is irrelevant in this case.

    --
    Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
    1. Re:"Irrevokable" by Arker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Notwithstanding the above, the irrevocable nature of the above rights will in no way be construed to limit Novell's or SCO's rights to enjoin or otherwise prohibit IBM from violating any and all of Novell's or SCO's rights under this Ammendment X, the Related Agreements, or under general patent, copyright, or trademark law.

      It seems pretty clear from that sentence that SCO does have the right to revoke IBM's license for cause. Of course the best evidence is that they have failed to follow the terms under which such revocation would take place- in particular by failing to spell out IBM's alleged breach- but they have the right to do so.

      Not at all. What you quote doesn't say anything of the kind. It says they may enjoin IBM from violating the contract. It doesn't say they can terminate the contract. There is a huge difference.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  2. XFS and copies by jbolden · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The letter's main point seems incorrect. IBM and SGI have a license to distribute the quote sounds like it is from a license to use. Given SCO's previous honesty I'd question whether he is quoting the correct license.

    One side point was even worse, "You can't take code based on a license you signed, change it a little and then give it away for free (as in the case of XFS from SGI)."

    How is XFS based on a license that SGI signed? AT&T and SCO for that matter have nothing similar.

  3. Why does this stuff keep getting reported? by coupland · · Score: 2, Interesting

    SCO has won nothing. They have disclosed nothing. They have accomplished nothing. They keep beating their chests and making outlandish statements every time they go a couple days without being in the headlines. But we keep reporting it and acting shocked. Darl McBride and SCO are the corporate equivalent of a kid eating dog poo out of the sand box for attention. Ignore them, they will go away.