[TUHS] V8 - V10?

[TUHS] V8 - V10?

[Pepe]

> Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 18:10:33 +0200
> From: "Jose R. Valverde" <jrvalverde at acm.org>
> Subject: Re: [TUHS] V8 - V10
> 
> 	Solaris has been open sourced and is heavily System V based. Novell 
> argues now SCO was not entitled to, and so the Sun-SCO agreement that made it
> possible is probably void.
> 
> [...]
> 	There remains the issue of the flow of SystemV licenses money to Novell
> after and if it is open sourced... I don't know how much that is, nor how much
> it might be 4-10 years from now when the SCO appeals are heard. So my evaluation
> is probably faulty.

I concur with your opinion.

If Novell could not get paid from The SCO Group of the percentage (about
90%) they are entitled to of the SVRX License Payment SUN made to The SCO
Group, and of the SVRX License Payment Microsoft made to The SCO Group
(because, you know, The SCO Group has filled for bankruptcy), then they are
probably going to action on the basis of said Licenses being void, or at
least in being void the part of such Licenses that allows to Sub-license
the material changing the terms of the License, or changing the License
altogether. According to this hypothesis on the future, in case The SCO
Group cannot find the money to pay Novell, Novell will probably try to
renegotiate such Licenses directly with SUN and Microsoft. Microsoft
will probably just return the material instead of paying for it (as they
don't need it), but SUN is in a totally different position.

SUN has now OpenSolaris, which was made possible by that License they got
from The SCO Group. So SUN will renegotiate and pay Novell to legalize
the SVRX License they got from The SCO Group which allowed them to
"open-source" Solaris.

Only after Novell gets that payment(s), either from The SCO Group or
SUN, will they consider "open-sourcing" the historical SVRX and
classical UNIX code. Otherwise, they could hardly monetize on it, as
they currently have the opportunity to do.

Regards,

-- 
Pepe
pepe at naleco.com

[TUHS] V8 - V10?

[Aharon Robbins]

Yow. I didn't expect such a flurry of legalese when I asked the question.

> Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 17:54:41 -0700
> From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy)
> Subject: Re: [TUHS] V8 - V10?
> To: Pepe <pepe at naleco.com>
> Cc: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org
>
> > Therefore, only Novell can "open-source" V8 - V10, which is the point
> > being discussed here, and Caldera had no title to do it.

I hadn't kept up, so this was an interesting surprise.  At least we know
more or less what's going on now.

> Has anyone asked Novell?

Indeed.  Do we even know who to ask there?

Thanks,

Arnold

[TUHS] V8 - V10?

[Pepe]

> From: Aharon Robbins <arnold at 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 at naleco.com

[TUHS] V8 - V10?

[John Cowan]

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 at 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

[TUHS] V8 - V10?

[Pepe]

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 03:31:53PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> 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.

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 at naleco.com

[TUHS] V8 - V10?

[Larry McVoy]

> 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

[TUHS] V8 - V10?

[Al Kossow]

Larry McVoy wrote:
>> 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?

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.

[TUHS] V8 - V10?

[Wesley Parish]

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:
> > 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?

-- 
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.

[TUHS] V8 - V10?

[Aharon Robbins]

Is the SCO "stuff" settled enough that DMR can release V8 - V10 to TUHS?

Thanks,

Arnold Robbins

[TUHS] V8 - V10?

[John Cowan]

Aharon Robbins scripsit:
> Is the SCO "stuff" settled enough that DMR can release V8 - V10 to TUHS?

I'd think it was.  SCO owns nothing except a license, and whatever it
did own, its predecessor in interest Caldera licensed away under a
BSD license.

Whether anyone wants to do the work is another question.
Digital preservation stands on three legs: right, power, and concern,
and the greatest of these is concern.

-- 
John Cowan   cowan at 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

[TUHS] V8 - V10?

[Warren Toomey]

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 09:58:21PM +0300, Aharon Robbins wrote:
> Is the SCO "stuff" settled enough that DMR can release V8 - V10 to TUHS?

I'm surprised that Norman Wilson hasn't spoke up about these editions. Here
is a bit of an e-mail he sent w.r.t 10th Edition a while back:
---
The system included intellectual property with five types of ownership:
a.  Stuff that came out of 4.1a (approx) BSD.
b.  Borrowings from contemporary System V, often then
worked over further within 1127, but still identifiably theirs.
(make and pcc2 are clear examples.)
c.  1127 inventions that were adopted in some recognizable
form into System V.  (Aspects of the stream I/O system, for
example.)
d.  1127 inventions that were never adopted by anyone else.
(Much of the connection server.)
e.  Chunks of third-party software that we had under various
licenses, and stored in /usr/src/cmd because we put everything
there; some public-domain, some private.

The problems involve b c d e. ...
e doesn't really matter because none of that code
matters (and in fact I have thrown it all out).  Probably nobody
is worried about d because it's all a dead end anyway from
a commercial point of view; certainly the Ancient Systems
License terms are likely to work fine.  (This is actually Dennis's
opinion too.)  b and c are the real problem: the attachment to
System V is recent enough that it is not obvious that the
Ancient Systems License applies
---

Cheers,
	Warren