21 May
2008
21 May
'08
8:52 p.m.
From: Aharon Robbins <arnold(a)skeeve.com>
Is the SCO "stuff" settled enough that DMR can release V8 - V10 to TUHS?
It seems clear, now, that the copyright on that is Novell's, and that
The SCO Group *never* had the copyright for that transferred to them by
Novell, and that therefore the "open-sourcing" of that material done by
Caldera is void because Caldera was lacking just title to do such
re-licensing.
Therefore, you can legally release it to TUHS, provided you have a license or
permission from Novell to do so.
You could always release it anyway, and hope for the best, but then you
are on your own and betting for your luck. Anything could happen, but it
is unknown.
--
Pepe
pepe(a)naleco.com
21 May
21 May
9:31 p.m.
New subject: V8 - V10?
Pepe scripsit:
It seems clear, now, that the copyright on that is
Novell's, and that
The SCO Group *never* had the copyright for that transferred to them by
Novell, and that therefore the "open-sourcing" of that material done by
Caldera is void because Caldera was lacking just title to do such
re-licensing.
IANAL and TINLA, but Caldera *did* have a license to sublicense the
content to third parties (which is not the same as copyright ownership),
so the BSD license should be valid.
--
John Cowan cowan(a)ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan
If a soldier is asked why he kills people who have done him no harm, or a
terrorist why he kills innocent people with his bombs, they can always
reply that war has been declared, and there are no innocent people in an
enemy country in wartime. The answer is psychotic, but it is the answer
that humanity has given to every act of aggression in history. --Northrop Frye
22 May
22 May
2:45 a.m.
New subject: V8 - V10?
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 03:31:53PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
Pepe scripsit:
Wrong. Caldera had a License to UNIX (including System V and UnixWare)
furnished by Novell, and they could only sublicense with a different
license if under Novell's prior permission to do so, which didn't happen.
Section 4.16(b) of the "Asset Purchase Agreement" entered to by the old
Santa Cruz and Novell, states: "[Santa Cruz] shall not, and shall not
have the authority to, amend, modify, or waive any right under or assign
any SVRX License without the prior consent of [Novell]". It is true that
here they are talking about System V, and not about Version 8 - Version
10.
What Novell transferred to the old SCO was the UNIX and UnixWare
trademarks, the UNIX business assets, and a license to pursue the UNIX
business on their own; and it excluded the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights.
Judge Dale A. Kimball says in his ruling on the 10th of August of 2007:
"SCO contends that the exclusion of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights
would render the APA meaningless because it would prevent Santa Cruz
from pursuing its UNIX business. [...] Contrary to SCO's assertions,
there is evidence that SCO did not need to own the UNIX and UnixWare
copyrights to pursue its UNIX business. It is well established that a
contract involving copyrighted works confers an implied license to use
the copyrights as needed to implement the transaction."
So, The SCO Group can operate the UNIX business it acquired from Novell,
but cannot change the license of that material is under because The SCO
Group does not own copyright of it, and because the APA the old SCO
and Novell entered prohibits such change of license without Novell's
permission.
It's not all clear cut, because the explicit reference to the
prohibition to modify the License only mentions SVRX, but it follows
quite clear that only the copyright owner, or those allowed to do so by
the copyright owner, can change the license of the material.
Therefore, only Novell can "open-source" V8 - V10, which is the point
being discussed here, and Caldera had no title to do it.
--
Pepe
pepe(a)naleco.com
It seems clear, now, that the copyright on that
is Novell's, and that
The SCO Group *never* had the copyright for that transferred to them by
Novell, and that therefore the "open-sourcing" of that material done by
Caldera is void because Caldera was lacking just title to do such
re-licensing.
IANAL and TINLA, but Caldera *did* have a license to sublicense the
content to third parties (which is not the same as copyright ownership),
so the BSD license should be valid. 
2:54 a.m.
New subject: V8 - V10?
Therefore, only Novell can "open-source" V8
- V10, which is the point
being discussed here, and Caldera had no title to do it.
Has anyone asked Novell?
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com
6:59 a.m.
New subject: V8 - V10?
Larry McVoy wrote:
I would be VERY interested in knowing their current feelings about this,
since I know of some other software encumbered by BSD-era Unix IP that
might become available if something could be worked out.
Therefore,
only Novell can "open-source" V8 - V10, which is the point
being discussed here, and Caldera had no title to do it.
Has anyone asked Novell? 
11:09 a.m.
New subject: V8 - V10?
FWIW, I have asked Novell to consider opening the Unix System V Release X
source trees after this SCO Group farce is wound up and over, in order to
stop it ever happening again.
I received a reply, but I've forgotten most of it.
Wesley Parish
On Thursday 22 May 2008 12:54, Larry McVoy wrote:
--
Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish
-----
Gaul is quartered into three halves. Things which are
impossible are equal to each other. Guerrilla
warfare means up to their monkey tricks.
Extracts from "Schoolboy Howlers" - the collective wisdom
of the foolish.
-----
Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui?
You ask, what is the most important thing?
Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.
I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people.
Therefore,
only Novell can "open-source" V8 - V10, which is the point
being discussed here, and Caldera had no title to do it.
Has anyone asked Novell?
6023
days inactive
6024
days old
5 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Al Kossow -
John Cowan -
lm＠bitmover.com -
Pepe -
Wesley Parish