-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

http://www.computerworld.com/governm...,90205,00.html

short piece, but explains it quite well..

Philip
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFAMnvi5sKixANmEMgRAq+/AKDHr80RcR5Tij2MWb7XdiH0OkFtBgCgkmJb
5GSkCW003MkH4fYU/5f9fvY=
=SMuS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Philip Callan <callanca@shaw.ca> writes:
"On Nov. 18, 2003, The SCO Group announced that it would sue some
corporate Linux user within 90 days. "

!!
I'm on the short list!

I was browsing the articles in the shop when, as if by magic, Philip Callan
suddenly appeared, at Tue, 17 Feb 2004 20:38:49 GMT and said the following:
Very interesting piece. It makes me wonder just how many
more nails in the coffin are required before SCO are
dead and burried.

--
Mark Gary
System Powered by Gentoo Linux 1.4
Registered Linux User #329755 - http://counter.li.org
email me at : uk.co.demon.mwgary.nospam@mark (reverse and remove nospam)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mark Gary wrote:

just as long as they make sure no-one can spill some blood on the remains to
resurrect it... if they'd observed those simple precautions there wouldn't
have been many Dracula sequels...

- --
COMPUTER POWER TO THE PEOPLE! DOWN WITH CYBERCRUD!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAMpESNclAUt2HMX8RAmBaAJ9YFLKaGuHk+pvYd5eQLN MjiwKM2wCgjv7n
LXHhbfxqbUS0gAHFTWV+sfw=
=x5XP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Philip Callan said the following, on 02/17/04 15:38:

This has come up in a couple of different articles in the last week or
so. In a way, though, it is not new news. IBM had covered this in its
original license agreement with AT&T (which was filed with SCO's
original complaint as Exhibit C). Here is the pertinent sentence:

"Regarding Section 2.01, we [AT&T] agree that modifications and
derivative works prepared by or for you [IBM] are owned by you."

This was a side letter agreement executed at the same time as the
standard Unix license. (The interpolations in square brackets are mine.)

If you want to read my original comment on Slashdot from June of last
year, it's here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=...mp;cid=6257485

--
Rich Gibbs (a/k/a richg74)
rgibbs@his.com

Mark Gary <markg@nospam.co.uk> writes:

It's really getting absurd, first Novell says SCO never had the
necessary rights to make these claims, now AT&T says Novell never had
them either! What a riot!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Billy O'Connor wrote:
| Mark Gary <markg@nospam.co.uk> writes:
|
|
|>>http://www.computerworld.com/governm...,90205,00.html
|>
|>Very interesting piece. It makes me wonder just how many
|>more nails in the coffin are required before SCO are
|>dead and burried.
|
|
| It's really getting absurd, first Novell says SCO never had the
| necessary rights to make these claims, now AT&T says Novell never had
| them either! What a riot!

No no no, Novell never claimed ownership of the 'derivative works' they
claim they still own the rights to Unix, and never sold SCO them in the
first place.

See, this house of cards rest on the fact that AT&T licensed IBM code,
they added a file system to AIX, and then donated that part of the code
to linux. (get it, their code for a FS for thier OS which was a
derivative of unix)

AT & T in *1985* when the licensees were worried about it, said that
they make no claim to 'derivative works' and those remain the propery of
their respective owners.

So, their contention is that IBM added to unix, then gave away what
their addition, but its a 'derivative work' so they get it now.

But AT & T didnt mean that they claimed ownership of 'derivative works'
just those pieces of the derivative that were THEIRS ie original Unix code.

But the code SCO whines about was *coded* by IBM, and therefore even if
they did own the rights (which I doubt since they wont produce the
proper paperwork) to Unix, they dont have any ground Vs linux, as the
portion of code is IBM's.

Now, if AIX still contains/ed portions of the original code, its
probably a whole other ball of wax.

Philip
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFAMpf85sKixANmEMgRAiQbAJ4lLCYI0qM3NVP3RWdnnG vQiJzzVwCfXss/
AnM8a75PzhJyEdD0SIGOYc8=
=tmUO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:04:17 GMT, Billy O'Connor <billyoc@gnuyork.org> wrote:
Maybe they'll sue themselves for a billion dollars.


--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:38:44 +0000, Mark Gary wrote:

Didn't Jason and Freddie come back about 20 times ?


--
W '04 <:> Open Source

Fearing a spontaneous XP reboot, Rich Gibbs mumbled this incantation:

Also note that Rich's /. quote refers to the securities fraud suit
*against* SCO in NY, which SCO could not get dismissed, and
ended having to settle. You won't find that in any press releases.

--
No, I won't fix your Windows computer!

And somewhere around the time of 02/17/2004 12:38, the world stopped and
listened as Philip Callan contributed the following to humanity:


Ops. Looks like someone over at SCO did not do their homework. If AT&T
said it, then that's what SCO has to follow. Oh well, SCO has faded
into obscurity anyways.

--
Daniel Rudy

Remove nospam, invalid, and 0123456789 to reply.

Billy O'Connor <billyoc@gnuyork.org> wrote:

But, from the same article,

"Of course, AT&T's blast from the past won't bring the gavel down on
SCO's suits tomorrow. IBM, Red Hat and Novell are already in court with
SCO. If a corporate Linux user joins them, even with good lawyers and
help paying for them, any suit is likely to be painful and long."

"Painful and long". Long. Long enough so the FUD drags out until after
Longhorn is released. That's all SCO/Microsoft want.

--

Peter