Slashdot Mirror
Novell Quotes AT&T on Derivative Works
grendelkhan writes "Novell has released their latest correspondance with the litigous bastards ordering them to stop the lawsuit by noon tomorrow, and clarify what the SVRX licensing agreements with AT&T meant regarding derivative works. The letter quotes AT&T from the April '85 issue of $echo as stating that they 'claim no ownership interest in any portion of such a modification or derivative work.' So much for the ladder rung analogy."
And reader highwaytohell links to today's CRN article in which Eben Moglen suggests that the SCO/Linux lawsuit cannot move ahead "until SCO resolves its dispute with Novell. And regardless of which company prevails in court, he said, customers won't have to pay any company for a license fee since both claimants--SCO and Novell--have distributed the Linux code under the GPL. Once again, SCO have no comment."
According to one of SCO's lawyers, in a letter published on Groklaw, SCO only managed to sell three "Linux licenses".
Yes. Three (3).
He says: "At this juncture, I am only aware of a license with Computer Associates, Questar and Leggett & Platt."
I'm betting you can get a good price on a used Linux license from them by now...
I cannot speak for the previous period. But recently, SCOX restructured their PIPE finance/loan from Baystar/Royal Canadian Bank to have a floor price of conversion for the $50 Million invested. Thus, Baystar would be guarentee of their initial investment. Should the stock price falls below the floor price, SCOX have to pay the difference.
Since the trade volume is so light, it doesn't take much effort of trading amounst friends to maintain the price.