Daniel Feiglin wrote:

And that presumably means that SCO's claim that Linux infringes upon Unix (copy write) code is stone dead - simply because SCO does not own Unix.

As I see it, the issue of copy write infringement per se remains moot, and the FOSS community can not yet let down its guard. Since Novell (owner of Unix) is not about to sue Novell (owner of SUSE) there is time for a breather. But what happens when someone comes along and buys out Novel, drops SUSE and starts the whole thing over again? It doesn't take much imagination to figure out who has the financial clout and the motivation for such a step.

Incidentally, can SCO appeal that ruling?

James Knott wrote:

...

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070810165237718

While they can always appeal, there's no guarantee the appeal will be accepted. The onus is on them to show the judge is wrong. As for Novell or anyone else continuing with this, the first thing they have to do is show infringement. Given that SCO produced nothing in this regard, I doubt anyone else can.

BTW, it's copyright, not copy write. -- Use OpenOffice.org http://www.openoffice.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Monday 13 August 2007, Daniel Feiglin wrote:

But what happens when someone comes along and buys out Novel, drops SUSE and starts the whole thing over again?

Novell has already donated any portions of unix that exist in linux. Novell also accepted the GPL (v2). Therefore its successors and heirs also are bound by this. Its a done deal. Nothing in linux infringes on Unix except by Novell's permission. Its over. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Jerry Feldman wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 01:28:10 -0800 John Andersen wrote:

...

Novell has already donated any portions of unix that exist in linux. Novell also accepted the GPL (v2). Therefore its successors and heirs also are bound by this. Its a done deal. Nothing in linux infringes on Unix except by Novell's permission.

Absolutely false. Certainly Novell has waived its copyright claims WRT Linux, but you forget the SCO vs. IBM. There are 3 products that IBM contributed to the Linux kernel, JFS, NUMA, SMP. These 3 are "derivative works", and by interpretation of the IBM-AT&T license, they could possibly belong to SCO. Actually, SCO claims that the Linux version of JFS was developed for AIX, but IBM claims it is the OS/2 version. So, while the SCO vs. IBM case is still pending, there is still infringement. Additionally, SCO does own the copyrights of things they have developed, but I don't think that is in their claim. In the IBM case, SCO has been sanctioned for not being specific.

Additionally, I believe that Novell accepted GPL 3, but the Linux kernel is still GPL 2.

IBM developed JFS for OS/2, so SCO can't claim it. No matter if there was some SVx code in Linux, since SCO doesn't own the copyright, it's not their battle. If there is any SVx in Linux, Novell (SUSE) is legally distributing it under GPL, as they own the copyright. SCO's definitition of "derivate work" was simply beyond belief and in stark contrast to what they claimed WRT to their own work, after the Novell agreement. Since SCO has failed to identify any potentially infringing work and it's to late to add more, they haven't got anything to sue about now. -- Use OpenOffice.org http://www.openoffice.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Jerry Feldman wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:55:37 -0400 James Knott wrote:

...

IBM developed JFS for OS/2, so SCO can't claim it.

That is IBM's claim, but it is disputed by SCO. Actually, there is the AIX version of JFS and the OS/2 version. IBM claims that the OS/2 version is the one they contributed (and I believe them), but the fact is that SCO is claiming that in their case.

Still, you'd have to accept SCO's bizarre definition of derivate works, one that apparently doesn't stick to stuff they develop from someone else's IP. Then there's the matter of copyrights. Since they don't own them, they can't sue over them, at least not without Novell's approval. -- Use OpenOffice.org http://www.openoffice.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Jerry Feldman wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:56:07 -0400 James Knott wrote:

...

Still, you'd have to accept SCO's bizarre definition of derivate works, one that apparently doesn't stick to stuff they develop from someone else's IP.

I don't see the definition being bizarre. It is essentially the language in the original AT&T license not the SCO license. IBM signed the license long before AT&T sold Unix to Novell.

...

Then there's the matter of copyrights. Since they don't own them, they can't sue over them, at least not without Novell's approval.

In the SCO vs. IBM case the copyright issues are moot, first because of Judge Wells' order because SCO was not specific enough, and secondly because Novell has already waived them. Actually, it was Novell's claim and waiver that caused SCO to add the "slander of title" against Novell in the first case.

Actually, I think that SCO actually thought they owned the copyrights, and either they were sold a bill of goods by the Santa Cruz Operation, or they made a very poor assumption when they acquired Santa Cruz's Unix division. In any case, we'll just need to wait until there are some additional rulings in the IBM case since there is an August 31st deadline in that case.

You might want to do some reading on Groklaw about this. One thing the court made clear, was that since the original SCO didn't have the money to buy Unix outright, Novell came up with a license deal, where they retained the copyrights among other things, until the new SCO forwarded enough license revenue to complete the deal. This means that had sufficient revenue come from SCO, all rights would have been transferred to them. So, they did not buy a "bill of goods". As for the derivative works, what SCO claims greatly exceeds what the original arrangement was with AT&T, which AT&T verified in a letter to IBM and elsewhere. SCO then tried to retroactively and unilaterally claim much more. T -- Use OpenOffice.org http://www.openoffice.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Jerry Feldman wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:15:35 -0400 James Knott wrote:

...

You might want to do some reading on Groklaw about this. One thing the court made clear, was that since the original SCO didn't have the money to buy Unix outright, Novell came up with a license deal, where they retained the copyrights among other things, until the new SCO forwarded enough license revenue to complete the deal. This means that had sufficient revenue come from SCO, all rights would have been transferred to them. So, they did not buy a "bill of goods". As for the derivative works, what SCO claims greatly exceeds what the original arrangement was with AT&T, which AT&T verified in a letter to IBM and elsewhere. SCO then tried to retroactively and unilaterally claim much more.

You are confusing The Santa Cruz Operation - the company that bought the Unix licenses from Novell with The SCO Group which is formerly Caldera that bought the The Santa Cruz Operation Unix division. What I meant by "bill of goods" refers to Caldera's purchasing The Santa Cruz Operation's Unix division. When Caldera International acquired that division, the question is did they think they were getting all the copyrights. I'm 100% sure that The Santa Cruz Operation knew what they were getting from Novell.

According to the various dates shown in evidence, tSCOg knew, at the end of 2002, that they didn't have copyright. This is before the lawsuits and before the SCOsource scam.

While I think that SCO's "derivative works" claim is weak, they are challenging this in the court. IBM's problem in that side is the terms in the official contract vs. the later communications. I'm 100% certain that IBM would never have agreed to the original "derivative works" clause, but what matters is the legality of the documentation. Can IBM prove to the court that the contract was amended to remove the "derivative works" clause. However, I do agree that SCO's interpretation is somewhat bizarre, but both SCO and IBM have some of the best attorneys available. So until it is adjudicated either by a Judge Kimball judgement or the result of the trial, it is still on the table.

IBM had clarified the terms with AT&T, long before this nonsense started. Also, if SCO claims that their idea of derivative works applies to IBM, then it must also apply to their own work after 1995, as it's the same original AT&T code in question. They can't have it both ways. If they own IBM's work (ignoring who actually owned Unix copyright) then Novell owns whatever SCO had created, since Novell has been found to own the copyrights. -- Use OpenOffice.org http://www.openoffice.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

You guys are pros.... But the debate-like conversation is for what? It make little sense... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org