Posted on 08/04/2004 7:14:20 PM PDT by Golden Eagle
>> Now the question I have is WHO owns the UNIX license?
Copyright, not license.
> According to SCO, they do via a chain of corporate
> buy-outs.
They have so far been unable to prove that Novell
transferred the copyrights. Both Novell and SCO have
registered them. SCO sued Novell for slander of title,
and the case is presently in dismissal.
Yes, this means that it is not at all clear that SCO
even has title to the property they suing their
customers over. This may be why they tell the press the
IBM, AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler cases are all about
copyright, but they have retreated from that posture in
all the cases.
http://www.groklaw.net/ has all the filings.
>> SCOx has not publicly produced an offending line of code.
> Nor should they have to, until the trial begins. Basic law.
Even after two separate court orders commanding them to do
so? And IBM says they haven't provided it, even under seal.
We await the court's response to IBM's motion for summary
judgement.
It's also basic law that you get to understand what you're
charged with, and so far, the SCO position is: we might
tell you after you're found guilty, or not.
In other news, IBM today pledged to not enforce its patents
against Linux, and encouraged other patent-holders to do
likewise. Microsoft "had no comment". I'm curious to see
what HP and Sun have to say.
Like many (most?) of your posts, I don't believe that's correct. I really don't think there's even a possible state of "presently in dismissal".
You're obviously confused. Poster Havoc constantly claims that Chrylser is ripping out all their Microsoft systems and replacing them with Linux, yet has never once been able to provide any evidence it's actually happening. Read his post again, or others in other threads claiming same.
Aw what a shame. Your first links ever, weren't they? Bogus.
> I don't believe that's correct.
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Novell-29.pdf
"Accordingly, Novell's motion to dismiss SCO's slander
of title claim ... is granted without prejudice. The
court grants SCO thirty days leave to amend ..."
> ... don't think there's even a possible state of
> "presently in dismissal".
The 30 days is up, so unless SCO amended, it's simply
dismissed. I haven't checked to see it they cooked up
some imaginary special damages. Have you any news on
that topic?
Its more likely this is another legal fishing expedition by SCO but who knows..
SCO has provided nothing publically they have had some closed meeting in which they provided some bunk code from a 1970's text book...
Can you link to the 300 Kernel violations I have not seen that article..
Novell's motion to dismiss was denied according to this on Information Week:
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=21700431
A federal judge has given SCO Group 30 days to specify the damages it suffered when Novell publicly challenged SCO's claim that it owned the copyrights to Unix code that allegedly became a part of Linux. Federal Judge Dale Kimball on Thursday also denied Novell's motion to dismiss the suit...
This is Havoc's post from above, and I haven't seen any proof of it, have you?
Just hear say, nothing in print. New installs, yes, ripping out infrastructure, no. And I am all for unix and linux.
Specifically we have:
HP Memo
Samba (Not the Linux Kernel)
Apache (Not in the Linux Kernel)
Sendmail (Not in the Linux Kernel)
Other than that no applications, or libraries are mentioned. Also this was put up by a company selling IP insurance, yea no reason to be skeptical there..
Thank you come again
I don't understand your post. Bruce Perens himself said they were in the kernel alone. And they are possible violations, just as I said in my post. You need to get off your high horse, it's your own people selling this insurance.
Really where is the quote about the linux kernel itself...
BTW where in the article you linked is the kernel mentioned??
You seem from your posts to be ignorant of what is going on in SCOx vs. DCX and as usual not interested in an facts that do not suppoort your increasingly frantic efforts to try to ignore the underlying fundamentals of where software is heading.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.