To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
What's more, the two companies' technology license agreement (TLA) stated that for a two-year period after the deal commenced, should Santa Cruz become acquired, Novell "shall automatically have unlimited, royalty-free, perpetual rights to the Licensed Technology."
Did Caldera buy SCO during those two years?
AFAIK, this case revolved around the fact that the copyrights was never included in the deal to begin with.
IT's amazing how much misinformation commentors are posting on this board. You are completely and utterly wrong.
That 2 year period had absolutely nothing to do with ownership of the Unix copyrights, or the rights to license said copyrights, whatsoever. It was regarding future derivatives that SCO WOULD own the copyrights to, and Novell's rights under a LICENSE SCO granted to them. Read the ruling for Christ's sakes, it says so right in it. Don't rely on news sites that also apparently don't know how to read.





Member since:
2005-07-06
MS and Sun bought licenses from SCO (which SCO had the right to sell) and Novell is entitled to part of the money that MS and Sun paid (95% or what was it?)
Actually no.
The agreement was that if SCO was bought out, they lose rights to the code; SCO was bought out by Caldera, SCO lost rights to the code, so therefore, if Microsoft or Sun needed to purchase rights, they had to go back to the holder whom it reverted back to after the Caldera buyout.
http://www.betanews.com/article/Judge_Novell_Not_SCO_Owns_UNIX_Copy...
SCO was acquired, therefore, SCO owns nothing. Like I said, Microsoft and Sun paid the wrong people for the technology. Considering that these arrangements were most likely confidential, both companies worked with SCO with good faith that SCO had the rights to the intellectual property they were attempting to licence.