Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>> Nobody here has yet explained how Sun managed to legitimately
>> open-source code without getting permission from Novell.
>
> And no one here is likely to divulge the contents of confidential
> contracts signed between Sun and other companies either. Sun's
> lawyers a
> Where's the FUD? No one is claiming that Sun doesn't
> have rights based on earlier agreements with Novell
> and AT&T. The issue, which everyone seems to be
> avoiding here, is that, according to McNealy (see
> quote above), Sun went back to SCO to modify the
> earlier agreements. The judge has a
Where's the FUD? No one is claiming that Sun doesn't have rights based on
earlier agreements with Novell and AT&T. The issue, which everyone seems to be
avoiding here, is that, according to McNealy (see quote above), Sun went back
to SCO to modify the earlier agreements. The judge has already de
Al <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I guess we'll all have to wait and see what happens.
>
> In the latest court filing Novell states:
>
> "At trial, Novell will seek a declaration that SCO was also obligated to seek
> Novell's approval prior to entering into new SVRX licenses or amendments to
Well, I guess we'll all have to wait and see what happens.
In the latest court filing Novell states:
"At trial, Novell will seek a declaration that SCO was also obligated to seek
Novell's approval prior to entering into new SVRX licenses or amendments to
SVRX licenses that that SCO therefore ha
Al <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [b]McNeely: "We had to pay SCO more money so we could open the code". [/b]
>
> Nobody here has yet explained how Sun managed to legitimately open-source
> code without getting permission from Novell. The fact that SCO agreed to this
> and Sun paid them money to do
Al wrote:
> [b]McNeely: "We had to pay SCO more money so we could open the code". [/b]
>
> Nobody here has yet explained how Sun managed to legitimately open-source
> code without getting permission from Novell. The fact that SCO agreed to this
> and Sun paid them money to do so seems to be irrel
> Nobody here has yet explained how Sun managed to legitimately open-source
> code without getting permission from Novell. The fact that SCO agreed to this
> and Sun paid them money to do so seems to be irrelevant in light of the
> recent court decision.
What does Novell have to do with Sun's
Al wrote:
> Nobody here has yet explained how Sun managed to legitimately open-source
> code without getting permission from Novell.
And no one here is likely to divulge the contents of confidential
contracts signed between Sun and other companies either. Sun's
lawyers and execs know the detail
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 14:26 -0700, Al wrote:
> [b]McNeely: "We had to pay SCO more money so we could open the code".
> [/b]
>
> Nobody here has yet explained how Sun managed to legitimately
> open-source code without getting permission from Novell. The fact that
> SCO agreed to this and Sun paid t
[b]McNeely: "We had to pay SCO more money so we could open the code". [/b]
Nobody here has yet explained how Sun managed to legitimately open-source code
without getting permission from Novell. The fact that SCO agreed to this and
Sun paid them money to do so seems to be irrelevant in light of t
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 10:25 -0700, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
> > What makes you think Novell's legal team have as
> > little subtlety and smarts as SCO's? There are other
> > options.
> >
>
> The SCO suit caused a havoc, b/c the authorship (& thus the copyright
> ownership) is a big mess in Linux. L
> Side note, $14million seems an awful lot for just
> some drivers.
>
> Matthew
>
At that time it was well accepted that the (then) big bad Sun Micro used the
licensing fee as a pretense to underwrite part of SCO's legal expenses against
Linux. Microsoft paid much more (I believe it was $50 m
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 10:14 -0700, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
> > Side note, $14million seems an awful lot for just
> > some drivers.
> >
> > Matthew
> >
>
> At that time it was well accepted that the (then) big bad Sun Micro
> used the licensing fee as a pretense to underwrite part of SCO's legal
>
> What makes you think Novell's legal team have as
> little subtlety and smarts as SCO's? There are other
> options.
>
The SCO suit caused a havoc, b/c the authorship (& thus the copyright
ownership) is a big mess in Linux. Linus never bothered to keep track of who
owned what, and/or verify wh
What makes you think Novell's legal team have as little subtlety and smarts as
SCO's? There are other options.
> [b]Bruce Lowry, Novell Spokesman, Aug 2007[/b]
>
> "We're not interested in suing people over Unix,"
> Novell spokesman
> Bruce Lowry said. "We're not even in the Unix
> business anym
On 8/17/07, Kaiwai Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 06:34 +0530, S h i v wrote:
> > On 8/17/07, Brandorr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > [b]Bruce Lowry, Novell Spokesman, Aug 2007[/b]
> > >
> > > "We're not interested in suing people over Unix," Novell spokesman
> > > Br
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 06:34 +0530, S h i v wrote:
> On 8/17/07, Brandorr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [b]Bruce Lowry, Novell Spokesman, Aug 2007[/b]
> >
> > "We're not interested in suing people over Unix," Novell spokesman
> > Bruce Lowry said. "We're not even in the Unix business anymore."
> >
On 8/17/07, Brandorr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [b]Bruce Lowry, Novell Spokesman, Aug 2007[/b]
>
> "We're not interested in suing people over Unix," Novell spokesman
> Bruce Lowry said. "We're not even in the Unix business anymore."
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,135959-c,unix/article.html
[b]Bruce Lowry, Novell Spokesman, Aug 2007[/b]
"We're not interested in suing people over Unix," Novell spokesman
Bruce Lowry said. "We're not even in the Unix business anymore."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,135959-c,unix/article.html
On 8/16/07, Al <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [b]Darl McBr
[b]Darl McBride, SCO CEO, April 2005[/b]:
"We have seen what Sun plans to do with OpenSolaris and we have no problem with
it. What they're doing protects our Unix intellectual property rights."
[b]Jack Messman, Novell CEO, in November 2004 on Sun's plans to open source
Solaris[/b]:
"We are g
Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Michael Huff wrote:
>
> > Is it that simple?
> >
> > Sun paid money to SCO to license IP (of some form) relating to Unix -why
> > would they do that if they already owned the rights to it?
>
> Insurance? While I don't know exactly what
On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 09:18 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Michael,
>
> > Since SCO had no right to enter into the deal, and had no authority to
> > assign rights, wouldn't that essentially invalidate the deal -and therefore
> > leave Sun as vulnerable as they were before the made that agreement -may
Michael,
> Since SCO had no right to enter into the deal, and had no authority to
> assign rights, wouldn't that essentially invalidate the deal -and therefore
> leave Sun as vulnerable as they were before the made that agreement -maybe
> even more so now that they've distributed code that they po
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Michael Huff wrote:
> Is it that simple?
>
> Sun paid money to SCO to license IP (of some form) relating to Unix -why
> would they do that if they already owned the rights to it?
Insurance? While I don't know exactly what they did with SCO, in a world
of litigation, a littl
>Is it that simple?
>
>Sun paid money to SCO to license IP (of some form) relating to Unix -
>why would they do that if they already owned the rights to it?
At the time this was said to be a license for "(Intel)
specific device drivers".
>Since SCO had no right to enter into the deal, and had
"Giles Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/14/07, Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > since I´ m not very well informed about the history of Unix, I just wanted
> > to ask: Could Novell come up one day and say "parts of Solaris is ours" ?
> >
> > Thanks in advance?
>
> No.
Is it that simple?
Sun paid money to SCO to license IP (of some form) relating to Unix -why would
they do that if they already owned the rights to it?
Since SCO had no right to enter into the deal, and had no authority to assign
rights, wouldn't that essentially invalidate the deal -and theref
On 8/14/07, Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> since I´ m not very well informed about the history of Unix, I just wanted to
> ask: Could Novell come up one day and say "parts of Solaris is ours" ?
>
> Thanks in advance?
No. Sun's license goes way back to AT&T days with System V rele
Hello,
since I´ m not very well informed about the history of Unix, I just wanted to
ask: Could Novell come up one day and say "parts of Solaris is ours" ?
Thanks in advance?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing
30 matches
Mail list logo
