Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th Aug 2007 21:37 UTC
Novell and Ximian In the wake of last week's ruling that Novell, and not SCO, controls the copyrights covering UNIX, Novell is reassuring Unix users that it has no plans to follow in SCO's footsteps. Given that the company is no longer in the business of selling UNIX, it has no reason to pursue any copyright claims.
Order by: Score:
canceled?
by Eugenia on Wed 15th Aug 2007 21:39 UTC
Eugenia
Member since:
2005-06-28

Too bad. It was a good show. I will complain to FOX. ;-)

Edited 2007-08-15 21:40

Reply Score: 1

RE: canceled?
by flanque on Wed 15th Aug 2007 21:46 UTC in reply to "canceled?"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

I don't see any sense in Novell suing anyone over Unix. They've taken too much bad press lately and I couldn't see anything beneficial for Novell, from a public relations perspective, from suing anyone.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: canceled?
by google_ninja on Wed 15th Aug 2007 22:01 UTC in reply to "RE: canceled?"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Dealing with MS is bad press in forums filled with enthusiasts, but its good press for businesses looking to deploy a linux solution in a microsoft world.

Reply Score: 15

RE[3]: canceled?
by flanque on Wed 15th Aug 2007 22:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: canceled?"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Maybe. I'd be of the mind that many of the people on these forums are responsible for at least recommending solutions.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: canceled?
by Kroc on Thu 16th Aug 2007 13:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: canceled?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

CEO overrules OK

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: canceled?
by twenex on Thu 16th Aug 2007 15:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: canceled?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Dealing with MS is bad press in forums filled with enthusiasts, but its good press for businesses looking to deploy a linux solution in a microsoft world.

Oh please. Show me anyone who got taken in by Microsoft and survived.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[3]: canceled?
by Moulinneuf on Thu 16th Aug 2007 18:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: canceled?"
RE: canceled?
by glarepate on Thu 16th Aug 2007 02:17 UTC in reply to "canceled?"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Good show indeed!! Maybe we can convince Royal Bank of Canada to start some new PIPE financing to underwrite Caldera's appeal of the near nuclear holocaust level of a loss in their case against Big Red.

The show might then go on ...

Muwahahahahahahahaha!!

<====D)o:[>~

(Sad, pencil neck clown)

Reply Score: 0

Solaris
by Luminair on Wed 15th Aug 2007 21:53 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

Here's the OpenSolaris thread about this: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=37176&tstart=0

Word is that Sun and OpenSolaris are in the clear and can't be sued by SCO or Novell.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Solaris
by watchingeyes on Thu 16th Aug 2007 02:05 UTC in reply to "Solaris"
watchingeyes Member since:
2007-05-04

Good thing my company just fired all its lawyers. We'll be able to save money getting all of our legal advise from random people on message boards (who, from the part of the thread I read, seem completely unable to even get the basic facts of the dispute between Novell and SCO right).

Reply Score: 7

RE: Word is that Sun and OpenSolaris are in the clear
by glarepate on Thu 16th Aug 2007 02:06 UTC in reply to "Solaris"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Word.

HP, too.

In fact that was unilaterally declared by Caldera management. It's not a rumor nor a common perception. It was a management decision and declaration.

Very early on in their slow death by self-initiated adversarial process Caldera declared that Sun and HP were granted immunity from attack because their code bases were "clean". No actual code review was ever done of their software and even after 5.5 years the only "infringing" code claimed by Caldera consists of header files and implementations of the Posix and UNIX(TM) conformance features. This was just one of many, many of Caldera's actions and inactions that helped convince me that there wasn't even a teacup for their alleged tempest to take place in.

They also said that no other OS was in the clear, be it MS, Apple, the BSDs or others because they all depended on concepts and implementations that originated in Unix, which they owned. No doubt many a mainframe and mini OS publisher found this highly amusing.

After Sun purchased a[n unauthorized] license buy-out and said they intended to create an Open Source Solaris Novell announced that THEY would have something to say about the open sourcing of any encumbered code. I never saw any public announcement that a discussion between them ever took place, but Open Solaris exists and Novell isn't suing anyone over it. Draw your own conclusions. At first some of Open Solaris was only distributed as binary modules due to encumberment. I haven't worked with it for a couple years now so I don't know if the encumbered code has been replaced with freely available stuff or not.

Calders/SCO's announcement in no way precluded Novell from initiating any lawsuits. They never had any right to make a decision on that at any time and the judge has ruled to that effect. Only Novell's Word that they don't intend to sue over Unix is a valid basis for saying that Sun, or anyone else, can't or won't be sued by them.

I looked at some of the discussion in the link you provided and I see that it has much good content and almost equally as much nonsense but nothing so outrageous as saying that a reseller of copyrighted works can sue end users over third party products that have no demonstrable connection to what they sell. RedHat's Lanham Act suit against Caldera is likely on infinite hold since the judge agreed to honor the request by both parties to wait until after the IBM case was heard to begin. There may not be a Caldera/SCO by the time the Novell hearings are finished this September.

Their stock closed up $0.02 at $0.38 today on a volume of under 800k shares. Last Monday nearly 6 million shares were traded, about a quarter of their issued stock, and they went from $1.56 to $0.44 at closing.

I have been gloating unrepentantly ever since.

Reply Score: 3

Novell will at least threaten to sue
by sbergman27 on Wed 15th Aug 2007 22:11 UTC
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

Not now, of course. But when they are in dire straights, they will at least threaten it.

They are not winning their battle with Microsoft. And when push comes to shove, and after Hovsepian has been ousted, they will be casting about to make the most of their assets. The stockholders, the cold and uncaring bastards that they are, will demand it.

Reply Score: 4

g2devi Member since:
2005-07-09

That's the tricky part of the phrase "no plans to sue". "No plans to sue" means, "I don't think we will, but you never know the future....".

Not very confidence building, is it?

If Novell really means, "we will never sue" they should outright say that or not say anything at all since no-one expected them to sue (even if they had a case, which they know they don't, suing would terminate their GPLv2 license and thus kill SUSE). If they wanted good PR, they might even donate any copyrights they have to Unix to the Linux Foundation (not that it means anything since Caldera already did so and Linux is IP clean, but it would still be good PR).

I get the impression that Novell is lead by people who are either not very bright (beating Inspector Clouseau in clumsiness) or people who are very sly and two-faced. In either case, it's important to be wary since even a good natured fool can unintentially do harm.

Reply Score: 2

jakesdad Member since:
2005-12-28

Why do you automatically assume they would sue linux users? Linux is not unix,,, remember? They are reassuring Unix users....

But why wouldn't they sue, lets say, SCO for using unix parts without permission, in openserver or unixware.

Novell distributes a Linux distro... They arent going to sue linux users, the software is already GPL'd. Linux doesnt have anything to worry about... Its the Unix vendors that should make sure their ducks are in a row.

Edited 2007-08-15 23:22

Reply Score: 6

dbodner Member since:
2007-07-01

"Novell distributes a Linux distro... They arent going to sue linux users"


Didn't we say the same thing about Caldera?

Reply Score: 4

glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

I begrudgingly admit the truth of your comment and have voted you up in spite of my feelings about this potential issue re: Novell.

Thank you, Sir! May I have another!!

Reply Score: 1

mheath Member since:
2007-04-24

Yes but the key difference is that Caldera claimed they didn't know that "their" Unix code was in Linux. Novell would have a much harder time making such an argument with all the noise Caldera made.

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

If Novell really means, "we will never sue" they should outright say that or not say anything at all since no-one expected them to sue (even if they had a case, which they know they don't, suing would terminate their GPLv2 license and thus kill SUSE). If they wanted good PR, they might even donate any copyrights they have to Unix to the Linux Foundation (not that it means anything since Caldera already did so and Linux is IP clean, but it would still be good PR).


Sigh!

(1) Linux is not a copy of Unix, it is at best a "work-alike", a "re-implementation". It wouldn't do anything for Linux if Novell donated Unix copyrights, because Linux is not a copy of Unix.

(2) Novell have already issued everyone who wants it a license to use SuSe Linux. It is called the GPL. It is not revokable.

(3) Novell's logo appears here:
http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about_members.php
and here:
http://www.patent-commons.org/
... so Novell have already donated their patents to Linux.

What more do you want?

Novell is not going to sue Linux users. That would amount to suing your own customers. Only SCOG is insane enough to do that.

Reply Score: 12

Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

(2) Novell have already issued everyone who wants it a license to use SuSe Linux. It is called the GPL. It is not revokable.

In some countries, perhaps. In most countries I know of (including the US and all the EU nations), the GPL is not a perpetual agreement, and can be ended when either party (owner of license or owner of IP) decides to end it.

Reply Score: 0

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Incorrect.

The GPL is irrevocable in USA as well as EU. All countries participating in EU allows for irrevocable licenses.

You cannot REVOKE the GPL license - with ONE exception: If the Person violates the GPL license you can revoke it - but ONLY if the Person is violating the license.

I know you don't understand this as is evident from your postings on wikipedia, but when you allow somebody to use your work _forever_ as long as they follow the license then you cannot revoke the license unless it is broken.

Reply Score: 4

Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

[When] you allow somebody to use your work _forever_ as long as they follow the license then you cannot revoke the license unless it is broken.


This is very true. And if the GPL was a perpetual license, then that statement would apply.

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

And if the GPL was a perpetual license, then that statement would apply.


Once code is released under the GPL, that is it ... that version of the code is forever released under the GPL.

The copyright may decide to release later versions under a different license, but that does not alter the fact that the earlier release is still under the GPL.

The classic example is CUPS, which Apple have recently bought. Earlier versions of CUPS (right up until the time that Apple bought the code) are forever GPL.

What Apple decides to do with later versions of CUPS is now up to Apple. That does not mean that Apple have any ability to change the licensing of previous versions, though. They remain GPL.

If Apple decides to release a later version as proprietary, that act would create a "fork" of the earlier GPL code, and development of that fork would continue under the GPL independent of Apple. The fork would no longer be called CUPS though.

Edited 2007-08-17 04:10

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

It is perpetual for the SOFTWARE released under GPL.

If I acquire the SOFTWARE from you under the GPL you cannot later tell me that you have changed the license for me. The moment I receive it under the GPL my copy stays under the GPL as long as I abide by the license. You cannot revoke it unless I violate the GPL license. You can however decide to stop distributing it under the GPL for the future incl. older releases.

You can at any given time change the license (also for older versions) but not for those who have already received a copy of the SOFTWARE.

Reply Score: 2

Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

If I acquire the software from you under the GPL you cannot later tell me that you have changed the license for me.


Yes, you can. Without specific language in the agreement forbidding it (specific language that all versions of the GPL have lacked), anyone can withdraw from any legal agreement at any time -- including licensing out materials. This is not something that a specific license must grant you, but an innate right (as common sense tells you). (Even if the GPL, any license that forbids you from withdrawing from the agreement would not be considered legally binding in many jurisdictions -- it would be asking someone to sign away something they cannot sign away.)

For example: Microsoft could, at any moment, decide to end all their current license agreements and tell us to stop using Windows. It'd be corporate suicide, and they'd probably be carved to small ribbons by lawyers claiming all sorts of damages, but it's within their power to do so.

For another example: Anyone who has contributed code to the Linux kernel could change the license it may be used under at any time. No matter how much the armchair laywers at Groklaw and Slashdot complain, unless the Linux kernel maintainers got an easily bribed judge to preside over the case, they would be forced to comply with the contributor's new license terms or cease use of that contributor's code. It'd probably get the contributor threatened and harmed in various ways by the more radical members of the Linux community, but it'd be all within their rights.

Edited 2007-08-17 06:05 UTC

Reply Score: 1

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Thatnks for that wonderfully optimistic view of things. Novell is one company that hasn't really acted that way in the past, but you are sure they'll do it in the future.

Reply Score: 4

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
Novell is one company that hasn't really acted that way in the past, but you are sure they'll do it in the future.
"""

I suspect so, yes. They've not done anything to make me think that they will *not* take the short-sighted view, as most corps seem to do when things get tough. And my crystal ball shows things getting very tough, indeed, for Novell in the future.

Edited 2007-08-15 23:47

Reply Score: 2

jakesdad Member since:
2005-12-28

why would things get tough for Novell in the future?

If anything happens IBM would just buy them. IBM already has one foot in the door there anyway.

Reply Score: 1

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
If anything happens IBM would just buy them.
"""

Is there an echo in here? I think I just heard a phrase from 2003. IBM would just buy them?

If the community trusts Novell so much, we might *really* be in trouble! ;-)

Edit: And if the community really trusts IBM, in the long run, we're sunk.

Edited 2007-08-16 00:19

Reply Score: 4

IanSVT Member since:
2005-07-06

And if the community really trusts IBM, in the long run, we're sunk.


And beyond that the Novell user/admin community as well. Not that I think it would happen, but IBM outright purchasing Novell would be a death blow to a legitimate competitor to Microsoft in the directory services and identity management market. I couldn't see IBM doing anything outside of striping and destroying. That seems to be the common outcome when company A buys company B.

Reply Score: 2

watchingeyes Member since:
2007-05-04

You're either trying to spread FUD or are downright ignorant of the law. As I (and any lawyer worth their salt) will maintain, there is nothing to fear from Novell suddenly owning Unix (...even though they have for years now).

The code is GPL'd. BOTH SCO AND NOVELL have licensed it as such. For years on end! End of story. They have explicitly granted permission, to the extent that they are legally able to give it (as in only to the parts of Linux they own the copyrights to), for anyone to copy and modify it under the terms of the GPL without requiring any permission. No Judge will let them profit off of a license and then turn around and ignore it when the going gets tough (which SCO will find out in IBM vs SCO shortly...) The doctrines of license, waiver, estoppel, laches, etc etc are all there specifically to PREVENT this kind of behaviour.

It's a basic principle of copyright law. You can't merely revoke a license because you change your mind, unless the license contains a clause allowing you to do so. The GPL contains no such clause.

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
You're either trying to spread FUD or
"""

A few comments.

1. Have a look at my posting history to put your claim into context.

2. Starting out a post with a sentence that includes the phrase "spread FUD" immediately reduces your credibility. It's best not to do it.

2a. When you *really* mean "fostering fear, uncertainty, and doubt", take the time to spell it out. The "FUD" acronym has been so very badly abused that it has no real meaning anymore, other than "I disagree with ${fill_in_the_blank}.

3. You don't have to have a case to sue.

4. You don't have to win a case to monetize the copyrights if someone will pay you simply to do the suing.

Edited 2007-08-16 14:10

Reply Score: 4

butters Member since:
2005-07-08

IBM won't buy a Linux vendor. Let me provide some insight into IBM's corporate culture. This is a company that watches its partners and competitors come and go over the years while it remains the iconic leader of business technology. If Novell fails, it will be survived by other Linux vendors. If Linux fails, it will be survived by other operating systems.

The industry will change, and IBM will float with the currents. The only thing that can harm IBM is sticking to its guns when everybody else is moving on. If Novell's time is up, then IBM will move on along with everybody else. They already made their bet-the-company move back in the 60s. They don't need to do it ever again.

Reply Score: 7

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
They already made their bet-the-company move back in the 60s.
"""

What was that move? I was a toddler back then and I guess I missed it. :-)

Reply Score: 2

butters Member since:
2005-07-08

They created System/360, a revolutionary line of mainframe computers that used transistors instead of vacuum tubes, featuring a common platform architecture and operating system across dozens of models. The R&D reportedly exceeded an unprecedented $1 billion in 1960s currency, but s/360 made IBM virtually untouchable in the computer industry for nearly two decades.

Reply Score: 4

Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

Actually System/360 was the 2nd of three (or four, depending how you count) 'bet-the-company' moves for IBM.

For an insight into the first I recommend "Father Son, and Company: My Life at IBM and Beyond" By Thomas Watson Jr, et al.

Reply Score: 3

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
They created System/360, a revolutionary line of mainframe computers that used transistors instead of vacuum tubes, featuring a common platform architecture and operating system across dozens of models.
"""

Oh. That little thing. ;-)

I did not realize that the 360 was that revolutionary. Just that it was really big in its day. I'll read up on it. Thanks.

-Steve

Reply Score: 2

elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

IBM won't buy a Linux vendor. Let me provide some insight into IBM's corporate culture. This is a company that watches its partners and competitors come and go over the years while it remains the iconic leader of business technology. If Novell fails, it will be survived by other Linux vendors. If Linux fails, it will be survived by other operating systems.


Novell isn't a linux vendor. They're a well established vendor of network/directory/management software solutions that also happens to distribute linux based solutions. The netware side of the business may be in decline, but there is still a significant install base and Novell has their hooks into many large enterprises around the world. Given the fact that IBM is Novell's largest reseller and that IBM is determined to expand their managed services offering in every which direction they can, I don't think a Novell acquisition would be out of the question. Plus they already have a not insignificant capital investment in Novell. It's either that or risk it dropping into somebody else's hands, say HP or Sun. Or worse.

But as to what would happen with the SUSE portion of the business, you raise a good point because I doubt IBM really wants to play there. But who knows? They've never forgiven RH for the JBoss acquisition and Oracle is beating the linux drum, so it might not be that far fetched.

Reply Score: 2

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Good post as usual butters. However, IBM bet the company again fairly recently, moving from a hardware company to an "eSolutions" company. This is why Linux is such a big deal to them, it is an OS they don't have to pay to build, and their clients don't have to pay to use. Sure they contribute, but the development effort they put in is a fraction of what it takes to roll and maintain your own OS. This is also why AIX has been languishing for so long.

Reply Score: 4

Languishing?
by chicklin on Thu 16th Aug 2007 13:44 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Novell will at least threaten to sue"
chicklin Member since:
2006-01-05

Explain to me how AIX is languishing. Last time I checked, they were poised to become the #1 commercial UNIX vendor in the world (if you don't count OSX), i.e. they were within a couple percentage points of Sun and gaining ground.

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"suspect so, yes. They've not done anything to make me think that they will *not* take the short-sighted view, as most corps seem to do when things get tough"

Haven't really haven't done anything to make me think that they will, and they've been losing marketshare for years. They've owned the Unix copyrights for long enough to make me think that if they haven't done it now, they probably won't.

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I suggest that we wait and see. I doubt that Novell knew they owned the copyrights until the SCO thing blew in and they looked into the details.

I'm not saying that they will turn around and assert their rights tomorrow. But their battle with Microsoft has not gone well. When push comes to shove, if the board feels that they have value, you can bet that they will move to "monetize" them. Possibly under a new chairman if the stockholders decide to oust Hovsepian as they did Messman. Stockholders (that's you and me) become ugly, cold, heartless creatures when they put their stockholder's caps on.

And remember. You don't have to have a case to sue. SCO had less of one than Novell. We're at over 4 and a half years now.

So I say watch and wait, and we can revisit the issue when they decide to act.

Edited 2007-08-16 12:58

Reply Score: 2

glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Then I take it you have never seen any of the documents exchanged between Novell and Caldera/tSCOg wherein Novell explicitly denied the validity of all claims to any IP not actually written or subsequently purchased by the Gang That Couldn't Sue Straight.

There was never any question about Caldera not owning stuff that they never bought from the Santa Cruz Operation to begin with and Novell slapped them hard with notice of that fact from the very beginning. However, faith frequently overrides reason. That is it's advantage over rational thought: It can accomplish miracles that violate the rules of the mundane world.

YMMV

Reply Score: 1

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
Then I take it you have never seen any of the documents exchanged between Novell and Caldera/tSCOg wherein Novell explicitly denied the validity of all claims to any IP not actually written or subsequently purchased by the Gang That Couldn't Sue Straight.
"""

Some time after SCO pressed their law suits, Novell took a look and made their claims. SCO decided to press their "Slander of Title" suit.

There was *every* question about who owned the copyrights. The court of public opinion, at least in the more informed circles, decided early on that SCO did not own the copyrights.

But the court of law has only just ruled on the matter.

It took 4+ years for a court of law to decide. So the alternating question marks and exclamation points in your subject line are quite inappropriate.

I maintain that until the SCO thing blew in, the documents in question were sitting in a drawer with about an inch and a half of dust on top.

Reply Score: 2

grat Member since:
2006-02-02

But their battle with Microsoft has not gone well.

Yeah-- They've only managed to extract $884 *million* dollars from MS in the last 3 years. And Novell agreed to pay back $200 million over the next 5 years, based on revenue from SLES.

Terrible track record there. And they're gaining traction with the same set of PHB's who for years have refused to contemplate Linux-- It's slower than Novell would like, true, but anytime you see an announcement about some company switching over a few thousand desktops, chances are, they're switching to SuSE.

You're spreading FUD* about Novell. Plain and simple. Bill Gates would be proud. ;)

* Yes, I know what FUD is-- It's making negative statements backed up by nothing but a desire to see someone fail.

Edited 2007-08-16 19:23

Reply Score: 0

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Terrible track record there.


Yes, it is. As I said, their battle with Microsoft has not gone well. In the second link, note how NOVL has lost over 80% of it's value over the last 7 years.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=NOVL&t=my&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=msft

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=NOVL&t=my&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=

Edited 2007-08-17 16:07

Reply Score: 2

watchingeyes Member since:
2007-05-04

Well, considering Novell would have no rights to demand royalties due to their ongoing distribution of Linux under the GPL, thus relinquishing any copyright claims they could have against it, about all they would accomplish is landing themselves in the same mess SCO is in currently.

If Novell's shareholders really demand for that to happen, they're about as stupid as the people who invested in SCO without doing even the most basic level of research re: their claims.

I simply don't see it happening. SCO was a rare case of a company launching a blitzkrieg with a butter knife (and a brittle one that was about to snap at that)....most business people are not that stupid.

Reply Score: 3

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I simply don't see it happening. SCO was a rare case of a company launching a blitzkrieg with a butter knife (and a brittle one that was about to snap at that)....most business people are not that stupid.

Then how do you explain the massive gains SCO made when they made the announcement that they were suing IBM?

Either they ARE that stupid, or, more likely, their greed dwarfs their intelligence.

Reply Score: 3

Ben Jao Ming
Member since:
2005-07-26

Given that the company is no longer in the business of selling UNIX, it has no reason to pursue any copyright claims.


Or given the fact that they'd be lamers if they did it. Actually this quote kind of implies that they'd do it for the money.

Of course, I know.... they're a company.

Reply Score: 1

v Open Message to Novell
by Moulinneuf on Thu 16th Aug 2007 02:08 UTC
RE: Open Message to Novell
by lemur2 on Thu 16th Aug 2007 03:11 UTC in reply to "Open Message to Novell"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Open Message to Novell :

Put it all into OIN and under the GPL.


Open message to Moulinneuf :

they already did.

Novell's logo already appears here:
http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about_members.php
and here:
http://www.patent-commons.org/

SuSe Linux is already released by Novell under the GPL.

Edited 2007-08-16 03:14

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: Open Message to Novell
by Moulinneuf on Thu 16th Aug 2007 09:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Open Message to Novell"
RE[3]: Open Message to Novell
by lemur2 on Thu 16th Aug 2007 11:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Open Message to Novell"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Put it all into OIN and under the GPL. = put all the UNIX copyrights the court declared your's last week in OIN and under the GPL.

Not the same thing that your discussing. If the UNIX copyright had been in OIN , then OIN would have been at the basis of the defense of everyone involved against SCO.


Sigh!

OIN is for patents, not for copyrights.

There was (and still is) ample defense of Linux against charges of copying from Unix simply by virtue of the fact that there is no Unix code in Linux. There is no need (in terms of defending Linux) to have Unix code released under the GPL.

GNU was created because Unix Copyright where closed. ...

You have completely no idea what your talking about at all , here! Do you really think that Unix copyright being made GPL as part of OIN would not be the #1 news , for MONTHS ? Do you have any idea what technology are under it ? and what it's controlling ? What it really means ? What ramification to all other OS it as ? NO ... so please , really , zip it.


Zip it yourself.

(1) OIN is for patents, not copyright.

(2) Unix code is already open source insofar as Unix 32V (ancient Unix) and the BSDs go.

(3) There are literally hundreds and hundreds of textbooks which explain in detail how Unix internals work. Here are just some of them:
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22Unix+internals%22&ie=u...

(4) Linux is not a copy of Unix, so it doesn't matter anyway.

You seem very, very confused about the difference between patents and copyrights.

Read up here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Limits_and_exceptions_to_cop...
"A copyright covers the expression of an idea, not the idea itself — this is called the idea/expression or fact/expression dichotomy."

"Another example could be if a book is written describing a new way to organize books in a library, a copyright does not prohibit a reader from freely using and describing that concept to others; it is only the particular expression of that process as originally described that is covered by copyright. One might be able to obtain a patent for the method, but that is a different area of law."

I know exactly why GNU/Linux was created ... it is your understanding that is under question.

It is all here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Manifesto
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html

If GNU/Linux and UNIX are made as one under the GPL ... There is a really big patch coming for the next release of all GNU/Linux related software and even more so in the kernel , plus tons of driver and protocol changes/additions.


I think you are very much out of touch here. Linux has all the drivers, not Unix. Linux is steadily eating Unix's lunch.

Reply Score: 8

v RE[4]: Open Message to Novell
by Moulinneuf on Thu 16th Aug 2007 18:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Open Message to Novell"
RE[2]: Open Message to Novell
by dylansmrjones on Thu 16th Aug 2007 09:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Open Message to Novell"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, that's the Linux part. I think the french guy was thinking of putting Unix (the parts owned by Novell) under the GPL.

Of course I could be misreading.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Open Message to Novell
by lemur2 on Thu 16th Aug 2007 11:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Open Message to Novell"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Well, that's the Linux part. I think the french guy was thinking of putting Unix (the parts owned by Novell) under the GPL.

Of course I could be misreading.


Maybe he was, but what would be the point?

People who use Unix SysV by and large already have a paid-up license for it.

People who run Linux don't need Unix to be under the GPL because Linux is not a copy of Unix.

BSD Unix is already liberally licensed and open source.

Finally, Unix 32V (aka ancient Unix) is already released as public domain code.

http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf

Reply Score: 3

v RE[4]: Open Message to Novell
by Moulinneuf on Thu 16th Aug 2007 19:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Open Message to Novell"
v RE[3]: Open Message to Novell
by Moulinneuf on Thu 16th Aug 2007 18:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Open Message to Novell"
Suing
by smitty on Thu 16th Aug 2007 02:20 UTC
smitty
Member since:
2005-10-13

Novell is reassuring Unix users that it has no plans to follow in SCO's footsteps.

I don't have confidence that Novell is committed to not suing if things went horribly wrong and they thought it could bail them out. But even if they were to sue they'd still be in the same position that SCO was when they sued IBM. Does anyone think they'd actually have a chance at winning that? It would just be pouring the last of their money down the drain which is why saying this is just trying to convince everyone they aren't idiots like SCO.

Edited 2007-08-16 02:25

Reply Score: 2

What does this mean for Apple
by vikramsharma on Thu 16th Aug 2007 04:58 UTC
vikramsharma
Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple's OS X Leopard recently got Unix certification, so could Apple also be sued?

Reply Score: 1

RE: What does this mean for Apple
by Johann Chua on Thu 16th Aug 2007 06:00 UTC in reply to "What does this mean for Apple"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Apple got the right to use the UNIX trademark for Leopard. Separate issue from the UNIX copyright.

Reply Score: 5

RE: What does this mean for Apple
by glarepate on Thu 16th Aug 2007 16:45 UTC in reply to "What does this mean for Apple"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Blake Stowell, a former PR flak and one-time head of SCOsource, told Mozillazine that ALL OS vendors were potentially subject to litigation because all OSes included SCOX IP. He specifically mentioned MS, Apple and the BSDs. Judge Kimball has posted a detailed ruling that places that claim irretrievably in the bit bucket.

Why Sun and HP were declared "clean" without ever doing a code review and Linux was declared to be a target even though their own code reviews (plural) had found NOTHING is a key to understanding that the suits they initiated were merely a way of keeping the company from going under since they had never made a profit and had only 6 months working capital left at the time they lauched this abomination of a "legal" proceeding.

Reply Score: 2

RE: What does this mean for Apple
by nebakke on Thu 16th Aug 2007 23:48 UTC in reply to "What does this mean for Apple"
nebakke Member since:
2006-09-04

I could of course be wrong but...
Leopard is based on the BSD kernel which was forked off before System V. My understanding of this whole discussion is that it revolves aroudn the right to the System V based code, so based on that I figure that Apple should be quite safe.
I'm not actually sure that Johann Chua's comment is relevant though as the issue is not whether or not the O/S Is using the Unix trademark but rather whether or not it is based around System V code.

Reply Score: 1

This announcement says little
by nevali on Thu 16th Aug 2007 12:22 UTC
nevali
Member since:
2006-10-12

Novell are saying two things here:

1. We won't sue Linux users and distributors. By definition (because we distribute SuSE) it can't be infringing our copyrights, but even if it was, we wouldn't sue anyway because we're not frigtards.

2. (And this is far more important) we're not going to sue the UNIX licensees that SCO dealt with.

Do you think Novell would sue somebody who ripped off the UNIX code without a license? Quite possibly, but that's not really important. The thing here is that they're saying “OpenSolaris will stay open”.

Personally, I'd like to see UnixWare released under a MIT license (insofar as it can be), as it could be considered to be a historical reference codebase (it came straight from USL, after all), and it'd be an interesting comparison point between it and OpenSolaris.

I have to wonder, though, if you go to Novell today and say “I want to buy an SVRX license” whether you get any code, or whether you just get the piece of paper that says you're allowed to derive and distribute the code. Presumably they must have some stock SVRX sources somewhere that makes up the basis for the licensing—though Unix in the 90s was so muddled it wouldn't be surprising if they didn't.

Reply Score: 2

binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

The thing here is that they're saying “OpenSolaris will stay open”.

No, they're not saying that. Sun bought their rights to UNIX from AT&T as a co-inventor long before Novell ever had the rights to begin with. The only thing Sun licensed from SCO was the rights to some code that SCO had that were not part of the original UNIX codebase.

See this thread:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=37176&tstart=0

Reply Score: 2

glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Those Guys Are Not Lawyers.

Enthusiastic support is not a legal precedent nor a historical recapitulation. However even a false premise may be followed by a true conclusion and I am equally certain that Open Solaris is in no danger from any legal claims any more than IBM or Novell were in danger from Caldera's wild-eyed and baseless claims. It still cost them lots of time and effort to defend against them though. I suspect that their defensive actions will extend to protect Sun should any others contemplate similar actions.

Reply Score: 1

binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

Those Guys Are Not Lawyers.


One doesn't have to be a lawyer to state the facts. The facts are that Sun licensed the rights to UNIX well before SCO or Novell ever were involved. Therefore, anyone, lawyer or not, can make a logical conclusion about the result. No legal advice required.

Enthusiastic support is not a legal precedent nor a historical recapitulation.


Exactly, which is why statements by Sun employees about the *fact* that they had their rights from AT&T are important.

You seem to not understand that some of these "Not Lawyers" people know the exact terms under which Sun received their code.

Not only that, people who are legal professionals, such as the person at GrokLaw, posted that the judge upheld the deals that SCO made as legal. The only thing that Novell is entitled to is to receive the royalties that Sun and MicroSoft paid to SCO.

Reply Score: 2