From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: pepe@naleco.com (Pepe)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:11:26 +0200
Subject: [TUHS] SCO says it was not authorized to licence SVRX to SUN, MS.
Message-ID: <20080610211126.GA16743@d600.naleco.com>

Hello.

Very interesting article from http://arstechnica.com here:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080501-deluded-sco-ceo-on-witness-stand-linux-is-a-copy-of-unix.html

A quote from that article:

"Greg Jones, VP of Technology at Novell, was called as a witness. Jones
was asked if SCO ever told Novell that it would sue Linux users. He
said, "No, never that specific." When asked if SCO notified Novell under
the Asset Purchase Agreement Amendment 2 that it would enter into a
license with Microsoft, he said, "No." 

Jones testified that SVRX code is in Solaris and that he had discovered
several cases of this. At that point, Novell entered into evidence at
least 21 examples of OpenSolaris code that had been taken from the SVRX
code base (one such example can be found on the OpenSolaris web site)
and re-licensed under Sun's open-source CDDL license. 

He further testified that the agreement between SCO and Sun was
"extraordinary" in allowing a move from a proprietary license to an
open-source license, and if Novell had been asked, it would have
prevented SCO from entering into that agreement. He said the same thing
regarding the Microsoft agreement with SCO, as well as the agreement
between SCO and Computer Associates."

	And then this pearl: 

"SCO argues that it was not authorized to execute license agreements and
that interested third parties such as Sun and Microsoft should get their
money back, but it says that Novell is not entitled to hold the money in
the interim. If you purchased a license from SCO that was unauthorized,
the argument is that you'll need sue them to get it back. Since SCO is
currently in bankruptcy proceedings, that could be difficult."

------

Ain't it funny?


-- 
Pepe
pepe at naleco.com