Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Contract illuminates Novell, SCO spat (News.com)
News.com got a copy of the 1995 contract between Novell and SCO.
"According to a copy of the contract obtained by CNET News.com, Novell sold 'all rights and ownership of Unix and UnixWare' to the SCO Group's predecessor, the Santa Cruz Operation. However, the asset purchase agreement, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, specifically excludes 'all copyrights' and 'all patents' from the purchase."
(Log in to post comments)
Contract illuminates Novell, SCO spat (News.com) Posted Jun 4, 2003 23:30 UTC (Wed) by trutkin (guest, #3919) [Link] I would hardly call that "illuminating". Sounds like it will take a court to decide who owns what. But it probably would have anyways.
Contract illuminates Novell, SCO spat (News.com) Posted Jun 4, 2003 23:43 UTC (Wed) by ls-lta (guest, #11615) [Link] This is not that unusual. At my last company we sometimes sold the code (i.e. access to it and the ability to modify it) but not the copyright.
Contract illuminates Novell, SCO spat (News.com) Posted Jun 5, 2003 3:46 UTC (Thu) by Odysseus (guest, #11518) [Link] I don't get the 'this is so unusual' sidebars.The parts of it that I read seem clear enough to my (adminttedly simplistic) mind. Novell transferred "the business" of licensing and sublicensing UNIX source code but not the copyrights. SCO can sell licenses ("the business") and lay suit against breach of those licenses but does not own the copyrights, ergo has no standing to bring copyright suits. I'll start using ergo much more often, more people should know what it means now. Something good out of an MPAA company. ; )
Contract illuminates Novell, SCO spat (News.com) Posted Jun 5, 2003 21:09 UTC (Thu) by jdthood (subscriber, #4157) [Link] If I have a copyright on a work then I can't really sellyou the business of issuing licenses for the work unless I provide you with the copyright that makes those licenses mean something. Thus I remain steadfastly confused.
Contract illuminates Novell, SCO spat (News.com) Posted Jun 5, 2003 23:59 UTC (Thu) by blaisepascal (guest, #9336) [Link] Not at all.Take, for example, real property. If I own an apartment building, I can sell to a rental agency the right to lease apartments in the building without transfering title to the building. This is an uncommon arrangement, but subleases are not uncommon (where a valid leaseholder issues a lease to a third party, allowing the third party rights to the apartment. The original tenant (holding the lease) is responsible for maintaining the terms of his lease, so the sub-lease can't grant rights not allowed in the lease). It is not uncommon for an intellectual property license contract to include language allowing the licensee to sublicense the work.
Contract illuminates Novell, SCO spat (News.com) Posted Jun 5, 2003 11:24 UTC (Thu) by Crazy_Squirrel (guest, #11592) [Link] Question is - if Novell holds the Copyrights and Ownership, will they sue SCO in turn for providing Linux for years, ie releasing protected code onto the Open Source without due verification that no copyright/contract infringement was caused?Wouldn't this negate any outcome of any other SCO suit?
Contract illuminates Novell, SCO spat (News.com) Posted Jun 6, 2003 4:09 UTC (Fri) by NovellGuy (guest, #11670) [Link] As a Novell employee, I can tell you that I have not seen or heard any suchthing as suing SCO going on in the rumor mill internally but that doesn't mean that it ain't in the works....
|
|
||||||||||||