This whole case is based upon a contract between IBM and SCO, where SCO claims that IBM, under contract to AT&T, agreed that any code they created and released with the SysV code be kept locked up.
There's a side-letter agreement to the original software license agreement (SCO's Exhibit C found at http://www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit) where AT&T agrees that portions of derivative works developed by IBM (or for IBM) are owned by IBM (see paragraph 2 of the letter). AT&T retained ownership of the original source. I think SCO loses the derivative works claims on the basis of the side-letter/contract agreement.
Now that is an interesting twist! I like it. Thanks.
Since you obviously read the license I'll ask what you thought about AT&T's warranty clause. I thought it was a real hoot because SCO's claim (1) makes a big deal about Linus not being able to check the IP ownership of kernel contributions, and (2) asks who users are going to ask for support!
I think that's the top of page 2, Exhibit D (not C), "Agreement No. X".
IANAL either(!) but I read that section to say that Novell / SCO rights to enforce the terms of the Related Agreements (including the original license) are not limited by this amendment. I think this means they can revoke the license if IBM does something like distributing the parts of the code that SCO actually does own--the issue is just which code SCO owns and whether IBM has open sourced it in violation of the original agreement.
SCO claims they own the derived works in their entirety, including the stuff developed and patented by IBM, because it appeared in AIX (a derived work) and then it was open sourced by IBM. This accounts for the claims based on JFS, etc.
IBM's case is based-on the limits to SCO's rights as defined in the side-letter. IBM developed it (or paid for it) and owns it and can damn well open source it if they want to.
SCO has conveniently chosen to ignore the side letter and is claiming a violation of the original license and using that violation as a pretext for license revocation.
So, SCO thinks they can revoke the license, but IBM says the haven't violated the original agreement and SCO can't revoke it! I'm voting for IBM if I get on the jury
The license is "irrevocable" only to the extent that IBM complies with the terms of the license, including disclosure of the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT. If IBM did publish the original bits and pieces of UNIX then their license rights could be terminated, but the bulk of the complaint is based-on derivative works.
Slashdot Mirror
..and pass her the remote while you're at it.
it's either that or turn on subtitles
Now that is an interesting twist! I like it. Thanks.
Since you obviously read the license I'll ask what you thought about AT&T's warranty clause. I thought it was a real hoot because SCO's claim (1) makes a big deal about Linus not being able to check the IP ownership of kernel contributions, and (2) asks who users are going to ask for support!
I think that's the top of page 2, Exhibit D (not C), "Agreement No. X".
IANAL either(!) but I read that section to say that Novell / SCO rights to enforce the terms of the Related Agreements (including the original license) are not limited by this amendment. I think this means they can revoke the license if IBM does something like distributing the parts of the code that SCO actually does own--the issue is just which code SCO owns and whether IBM has open sourced it in violation of the original agreement.
SCO claims they own the derived works in their entirety, including the stuff developed and patented by IBM, because it appeared in AIX (a derived work) and then it was open sourced by IBM. This accounts for the claims based on JFS, etc.
IBM's case is based-on the limits to SCO's rights as defined in the side-letter. IBM developed it (or paid for it) and owns it and can damn well open source it if they want to.
SCO has conveniently chosen to ignore the side letter and is claiming a violation of the original license and using that violation as a pretext for license revocation.
So, SCO thinks they can revoke the license, but IBM says the haven't violated the original agreement and SCO can't revoke it! I'm voting for IBM if I get on the jury
The license is "irrevocable" only to the extent that IBM complies with the terms of the license, including disclosure of the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT. If IBM did publish the original bits and pieces of UNIX then their license rights could be terminated, but the bulk of the complaint is based-on derivative works.