Re: [TUHS] Source code abundance?

On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Joerg Schilling <schily(a)schily.net> wrote: The plain language of the contract that was on groklaw makes it clear that SCO got the rights to sell Unix, but since they didn't offer Novel enough money, the copyrights were specifically not included. SCO could sell and sublicense, but then had to pay Novel royalties back as the copyright holder instead of a larger up-front payment. The judge, correctly in my view, ruled that this was the proper interpretation of the contract. The testimony of the people that negotiated was needed to clear up the issue raised by SCO about the interpretation of the rather specific language in the contract and addenda. This body of evidence was developed rather extensively through both testimony, as well as evidence of payments by SCO to Novel that supported the view that SCO could sell licenses, but had to pay royalties back to Novel. They did this for several years before stopping and embarking on their ill-fated legal battle. So a judge disagrees with you, as a matter of law and fact, that Novel's claims are not credible. They are the ones that won the day, and won the day rather handily. All the details can be found at http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20040319041857760 which includes a large number of exhibits from people that were actually there, who had first-hand knowledge, etc. On the whole it seems quite credible. I know who I believe, given the choice. Warner