SCO vs. Novell; Novell wins.

[Jerry Feldman]

On 04/01/2010 11:25 AM, Jeffry Smith wrote:
>   Only NUMA may not have the derivative clause - IBM DID have it,
> and the others are theirs.
>
> 2.  IBM developed the linux JFS from theiir OS/2 JFS, which was a
> clean-room implementation of JFS.  Despite what TSCOG claims,
> copyright does NOT cover methods and concepts.
>   
While these facts might be true (and from what I have read are quite
true), the lawsuit covers all 3. Essentially, the SCO vs. IBM case has
not been adjudicated, regardless what IBM claims, it is up to the court.
IBM has been claiming from day 1 that the derivative clause itself was
waived by AT&T. It comes down to contract law.

And, while Novell currently owns the copyrights, TSOG retains the
contract rights. This is why Microsoft and Sun went to TSOG, not to
Novell. That was the other issue in Utah regarding the royalties that
was resolved and not appealed. TSCOG issues and maintains the licenses,
and must pay some of the royalties to Novell.

-- 
Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id: 537C5846
PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB  CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/private/gnhlug-discuss/attachments/20100401/cd5d66b8/attachment.bin