Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Did SCO Actually Buy What it Thought?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the well-that-makes-things-different dept.

Int27h quotes The Age saying "Just before Christmas last year, Novell announced publicly that SCO had known for some time that it did not receive all rights and ownership to UNIX technologies, despite public statements to the contrary. Novell has made public correspondence between lawyers representing both Novell and SCO." Lots of links and commentary on what continues to be one of the strangest stories in the history of Linux.

8 of 470 comments (clear)

  1. Obligatory by GnrlFajita · · Score: 5, Informative
    Groklaw link here, with analysis and more links.

    Where this story was posted yesterday, of course.

    --
    When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.
    Mark Twain
    1. Re:Obligatory by eschasi · · Score: 5, Informative

      The various links also point to an order by the judge that it needs to provide, within 30 days, the code from the Linux kernel to which it says it has rights, and also indicate where IBM has infringed. The article is dated December 19, 2003, which means the 30 days is up about 90 minutes after I write this. Anybody know if it's actually happened? I write this. Any A US federal judge in Salt Lake City, Utah, has told the SCO Group that it needs to provide, within 30 days, the code from the Linux kernel to which it says it has rights, and also indicate where IBM has infringed.

  2. Re:Utah Judge by freakyboff · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, this is being counted down on the following website: http://www.scocountdown.com/

    However, this expires at midnight, so expect something the next morning.

  3. Remember current SCO != old SCO by kroyd · · Score: 5, Informative

    The current SCO group is just a renamed Caldera, which bought the Unix group from the old SCO, so it is wrong to say that "SCO didn't know what they bought", as the current SCO isn't the company which bought anything in the first place.

    Actually, the current SCO is probably just the 5th owner of the very diluted "Unix licencing rights" - AT&T first sold it to USL (Unix System Labs), which was bought by Novell, which resold the licencing rights to the old SCO, which sold off parts of the company to Caldera, which rebranded itself "The SCO Group".

    Of course, the current SCO management tries to confuse this issue, probably as they would rather have everyone forget all their contractual obligations with the previous owners.

  4. Re:Did SCO Actually Buy What it Thought? by fjaffe · · Score: 5, Informative
    That Amendment 2 allows for, but does not effectuate, the transfer of specific copyrights only to the extent that they would be required for SCO to complete its obligations in acting as a licensing agent for Novell.

    Further, copyrights are contained in the list of excluded assets, and that list is not modified in any way by Amendment 2.

    Further, that copyrights can only be transferred, under title 17, in writing, and that a vauge assertion that there is an agreement to transfer certain copyrights in the event they are required does not constitute a transfer in writing.

    What is your interpretation?

  5. Re:No one is taking SCO seriously anymore by KilobyteKnight · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article says that Amendment 2 states that ownership of the copyrights is not transferred until/unless it is shown that ownership of the copyrights is required for SCO to fulfill the purchase agreement

    Not exactly. It says that they get "All copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies."

    In other words, they get the rights to use, sell, and license code related to Unix and UnixWare. It doesn't say they have exclusive rights to it.

    If I were to write a program, then sell you the rights to use it however you wanted, that wouldn't necessarily take away my rights to do whatever I wanted with it unless we both agreed to that in the terms of the contract.

    The amendment even goes on to say that should either party be involved in a buy-out of the copyrights (complete transfer of all rights) the other must be notified. This clearly indicates that the Amendment doesn't transfer all rights to SCO.

    --
    When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
  6. Re:No one is taking SCO seriously anymore by bronxist · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nightspots says: ... but it's not entirely unreasonable for SCO to state (and then attempt to demonstrate) that ownership of the copyrights is required by them in order to defend against apparent illegal copyright infringment from a third party.

    If SCO does not own the copyright there is no need for them to defend it -- that's the job of the copyright owner. And if there is no need for them to defend it, apparently they don't own it.

    b.

  7. Re:Isn't tomorrow... by Zeelan · · Score: 5, Informative

    There put up or shut up day is on the 12th... technicallly the 11th... but they should have turnned in what they have to trun in by Monday Afternoon. Sense they had 30 days from the day that the order was signed.

    Even then we will not see what it is for a while less some of the papers are filed in a more public area.

    you should read Groklaw.

    Chahala