From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wkt@minnie.tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 10:02:19 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate In-Reply-To: References: <200305281925.h4SJPYJ8078685@minnie.tuhs.org> Message-ID: <20030529000219.GA82058@minnie.tuhs.org> On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 06:24:56PM -0500, Cornelius Keck wrote: > > Here's a question of interest not to the Linux community but to > > the TUHS one: if, as Novell now claim, the 1995 agreement didn't > > convey the UNIX copyrights to SCO, under what right did SCO issue > > the Ancient UNIX Source Code agreements, whether the restrictive > > version of early 1998 or the do-as-you-like Caldera letter of early > > 2002? Are those agreements really valid? > > Good point. If memory serves me correctly, the 1998 agreement was > not free for the asking, but rather required shelling out US$100, > which means that SCO "sold" something they never owned, which > constitutes fraud (anybody with some legal background reading > this: please correct). What's the statue of limitations (sp?) > for this? Actually, Novell have only asserted that SCO/Caldera did not obtain the rights to System V. Now, neither the $100 nor the BSD-style SCO/Caldera Ancient UNIX licenses covered System V, so this might not be fraud. It depends on whether or not SCO/Caldera have the rights to Research Editions 1 to 7 and System III :-) This is all getting to be like a very bad TV soap: UNIX Sons and Daughters. We've got grandad Research who was a pioneer in the area, son USL, and now a lot of bastard grandchildren. And of course there's the newcomer in town called Linux. Warren