From: "Paul Ranson" 

Maybe SCO have an exclusive licence.

Paul

"Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
news:3ed4c9d5{at}w3.nls.net...
> F**king hell...
>
> If this is true.... "Novell did not sell the Unix intellectual property
> to SCO. Instead, they sold SCO a license to develop, sell, and
> sub-license Unix. The title to Unix copyrights and patents remains with
> Novell." then SCO are toast. I wonder if they have the money in the
> kitty to pay for the "damage to business" lawsuits.....
>
> This quite literally made my splutter while drinking my tea....
>
> It would be nice (given Novell's OSS leaning of late) to see Novell
> release these copyrights & patents into the PD so as to kill this crap
> stone dead.
>
> If SCO knew all this before launching all this FUD (as evidenced below)
> then they are a "dead company walking".
>
> I wonder how much Big Blue knew....In fact I also wonder how much MS
> knew....
>
>
> Adam
>
>
> Joe Barr wrote:
>
> > http://perens.com/Articles/SCO/BigLie.html
> >
> > SCO's Big Lie
> >
> > We knew that SCO's attack on Linux was a lie. But we never dreamed of
the
> > big lie behind it.
> >
> >     By Bruce Perens
> >
> > This morning, Novell announced some of the terms of the company's 1995
> > agreement to sell its Unix business to SCO. The shocking news is that
> > Novell did not sell the Unix intellectual property to SCO. Instead, they
> > sold SCO a license to develop, sell, and sub-license Unix. The title to
> > Unix copyrights and patents remains with Novell. To back up this
> > assertion, Novell refers to public records at the Library of Congress
> > Copyright Office and the U.S. Patent Office.
> >
> > In their announcement, Novell refers to recent letters from SCO asking
> > Novell to assign the Unix copyrights to SCO. So, apparently SCO's
> > management team knew that they did not own Unix while pursuing their
sham
> > campaign against Linux.
> >
> > Along with this revelation, Novell is reiterating its support of the
Linux
> > and Open Source developer community, and its status as a partner in that
> > community. Novell rejects SCO's accusations of plagarism. Novell
> > management says they do not intend to stand in the way of the
development
> > of the Linux kernel, its companion GNU system, and other Free Software.
> >
> > It would be an understatement to say that this leaves SCO in a bad
> > position. The company has loudly and repeatedly asserted that they were
> > the owner of the Unix intellectual property, all of the way back to
AT&T's
> > original development of the system 30 years ago. They've lied to their
> > stockholders, their customers and partners, the 1500 companies that they
> > threatened, the press, and the public. Their untruthful campaign caused
> > the loss of sales and jobs, and damaged Linux companies and developers
in
> > a myriad of ways. And now, SCO will be the lawsuit target. SCO's first
> > quarterly earnings conference call is this morning, at 9 AM MST (11 AM
> > EST, 8 AM PST). Call 800-406-5356, toll-free, to participate. You might
> > even get to ask a question. It should be fun to watch them try to weasel
> > out of this one.
> >
> > Microsoft executives also have egg on their faces. The company
> > self-servingly rushed to buy an SCO license one business day after the
> > threat letter, bringing a senior attorney to the office on a Sunday to
> > tell the press how much Microsoft "values intellectual property."
> > Microsoft's management could have taken the time to analyze SCO's
claims,
> > if the company had wanted this license for practical and technical
> > reasons. Their decision to buy when they did must have been motivated by
a
> > desire to add to SCO's fear campaign. Of course they'll grab any
> > opportunity to spread fear about Linux, but this time Microsoft bought a
> > pig in a poke.
> >
> > SCO management, if they insist on standing in the way of a train, could
> > still claim that software they developed in the years since 1995 is bein
g
> > infringed by the Open Source developers. That claim, always a dubious
one,
> > will be difficult to take seriously now that their prevarication
> > throughout this campaign has come to light. SCO would be well advised to
> > drop their suit against IBM in exchange for IBM's agreement not to
> > counter-sue. But IBM might not feel that charitable toward SCO.
> >
> > In contrast to SCO, Novell's made a friend among the Free Software
> > developers. We're always happy to see people using our software. But a
> > real partnership between an IT vendor and our community is an equal
> > partnership, with the company donating services and new software in
> > exchange for the value it receives. Novell has already placed important
> > software under Open Source licenses. Today, the company has done us a
> > tremendous service, by stomping upon an obnoxious parasite.
> >
> > Bio: Bruce Perens is a director of Software in the Public Interest,
Inc.,
> > an Open Source development organization. He operates an independent
> > consultancy and is a senior research scientist for Open Source at George
> > Washington University's Cyber Security Policy Research Institute.
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4