Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:13:18 03/02/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 02, 2004 at 00:02:16, Russell Reagan wrote: >On March 01, 2004 at 22:06:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On March 01, 2004 at 16:41:48, margolies,marc wrote: >> >>>corporate redhat linux user antes up... >>>http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/legalissues/story/0,10801,90646,00.html >> >> >>This is _not_ a big deal. In fact, it is already all over but the shouting. >> >>AT&T has produced a document, written in 1985, that _clear_ says that it agrees >>that _all_ software developed by others and contributed to the Unix project >>remains the property of the _developer_. Novell bought the rights from AT&T, >>which included that clause. SCO bought it from Novell. Now SCO gets to choke >>on it for a few years, but it will _never_ get what it wants now. >> >>This is effectively over. > >I'm confused. The software belongs to the developer. What does that mean in this >situation? Who is the developer? Are there multiple developers (AT&T, then >Novell adds some, then SCO adds some...)? Ownership doesn't get passed on with >"buying the rights"? Only the ability to sell it? Or... something else? > >I thought the dispute was more over who copied from whom. So if what you're >saying is that SCO doesn't actually own the code in question, that just means >that someone else can go after commercial linux users, as far as I can see. > >I guess I'm not seeing how the statement "the software belongs to the developer" >solves the situation, unless you wouldn't mind clarifying and correcting my >confusion :) The crux of the SCO suit is this: SCO claims that any new code added to unix instantly becomes their (SCO's) property. That is what they are in court to claim. However, prior contracts have been found that directly contradict this opinion. It is now dead...
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.