From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: mike@ducky.net (Mike Haertel)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 00:49:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
In-Reply-To: <200305281925.h4SJPYJ8078685@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <200305290749.h4T7nu22092199@ducky.net>

>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?

You can have the right to sublicense something without owning
the copyright.  You can even have the right to sublicense the
right to sublicense without owning the copyright, and so on.
It all depends on your contract with the real copyright holder.

This is probably how the contract for Novell's "sale" of Unix
to (old) SCO was written.

But only the real copyright holder can bring a legal action
against copyright violators.  And judging from recent press
releases it would seem that Novell feels it is under no
contractual obligation to do so on (new) SCO's behalf.