Slashdot Mirror
SCO Sells Its UNIX Product Line To London Firm
An anonymous reader writes "SCO just forged a deal to sell its UNIX product line to Gulf Capital Partners LLC of London. Under the terms of the deal, SCO would continue to exist as a separate company helmed by Darl McBride, with its primary remaining assets being related to its mobile platform offerings. However, it's noted that this deal must be approved by the court, and should not be considered 'done' yet. It could fall through as others have in the past."
A while back a Judge ruled SCO does not own the UNIX(tm) copyrights.
((That would be SysV copyrights that were gutted by the BSD settlement, but that is a whole other story.))
SCO's argument in that case was that they could not run the UNIX business without the copyrights. And thus when they bought the business they must have bought the copyrights.
Now SCO is in BK court and in the processes of selling the business. The problem is they are also in the appeals court where their argument that the only way to sell the business is with the copyrights is being evaluated. So SCO is
a) selling the business without the copyrights in the BK court.
b) arguing that to buy the business you must get the copyrights in the appeals court.
It is supposed to be bad practice to argue different things in different courts at the same time.
But that does not stop SCO.
This article on the BBC news website was pointed to by a link saying "China lends SCO $10bn". Turns out it was a different SCO. Thank all the gods (and ceiling cat)!
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
> However, it's noted that this deal must be approved by the court, and should not be
> considered 'done' yet.
Then why did you headline it as if it were?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.