| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 33917 | 2003-05-29 21:32:00 | What's the SCO-Linux-Novell triangle?? | cyberchuck (173) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 148414 | 2003-05-29 21:32:00 | Hey I've been reading up recently on the Unix affair as to who owns Unix, and become really confused over the entire ordeal... PCAuthority (www.pcauthority.com.au) says that Novell owns Unix and that SCO has a license to develop and sublicense Unix... I can understand that.. It would be like Chilling_Silence giving me a program he made so I can add onto it and then sell it, however he retains ownership So, after reading the ComputerWorld Article (computerworld.co.nz) I am now confused as to how the SCO can sue Linux over using parts of it's source code, when in effect, Novell should be the ones upset... Also, how can SCO sue Linux Users when Linux Users weren't in the wrong in the first place.. They just got a copy of something which is free and readily available... It couldn't realistically be classed as buying stolen items or something due to the fact that when they bought it, there was no conflict with the SCO to begin with... Also, wouldn't it make more sense and be more money benifiting for SCO to just tell IBM and Linux where the alleged code is so some other linux guru's can just reprogram it and make their own?? ?:| CyberChuck |
cyberchuck (173) | ||
| 148415 | 2003-05-30 09:34:00 | Uh... *bump* | cyberchuck (173) | ||
| 148416 | 2003-05-30 10:14:00 | Its been fairly well covered here: http://www.theinquirer.net/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/ They should answer your questions. |
bmason (508) | ||
| 148417 | 2003-05-30 10:23:00 | I think it should be pointed out that SCO has not provided any evidence of the issue in question so we don't even know if SCO has a case. Personally, I don't even think SCO will make it to court. If they do, I can't see them winning. | segfault (655) | ||
| 148418 | 2003-05-30 10:25:00 | SCO owns Unix. And from what Ive read, it wasnt the users they were suing, it was IBM because they claimed IBM used knowledge/intellectual property from Unix in its development of Linux distributions... But this was based on an older (96) book so may well be out dated now. Iain |
Iain Walmsley (3372) | ||
| 148419 | 2003-05-30 11:06:00 | > SCO owns Unix. I'm not so sure. To quote this (www.novell.com) press release by Novell - "SCO continues to say that it owns the UNIX System V patents, yet it must know that it does not. A simple review of U.S. Patent Office records reveals that Novell owns those patents." and also - "Apparently, you share this view, since over the last few months you have repeatedly asked Novell to transfer the copyrights to SCO, requests that Novell has rejected." |
segfault (655) | ||
| 148420 | 2003-05-31 03:45:00 | SCO don't own the IP for Unix and they have been selling their own version of Linux so they don't have much of a leg to stand on. They are suing IBM and about 500 other top Linux users. If you study the whole thing you will find that MS has an involvement with SCO which throws a bit of light on the subject as they want Linux killed dead because of the inroads it is making on their turf. In Munich Germany they have rejected MS's deal and are going with Linux on about 140,000 PCs and I think MS deal was about 32 million. | mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 148421 | 2003-06-02 01:05:00 | Novell are pissed they didn't think of the idea first Going Linux on 140 000PCs? Check your figures, you're way out Besides how long do you think its going to take them to deploy even a 1/10th of that number? |
nmercer (3899) | ||
| 148422 | 2003-06-02 01:24:00 | > Novell are pissed they didn't think of the idea > first Novell are members of the open source community. They are now working with open source code to make their own products better. How could they expect to, on one hand, take IBM to court over the code itself and on the other hand expect their business to pick up? SCO's reputation has already been badly damaged enough with all the allegations thus far, I don't see how they could even think of surviving this. Novell could have very well have thought of this, but it would have been a very stupid decision of Novell's part. |
segfault (655) | ||
| 148423 | 2003-06-02 21:41:00 | You are right it was 14,000 not 140,000. It still doesn't take away the fact that MS have lost out on a $USA32million contract. > Novell are pissed they didn't think of the idea first. I don't really see why you say that as Novell are being really polite about the whole thing. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 1 | |||||