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.
Thread beginning with comment 263800
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent 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 Parent 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 Parent 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 Parent Score: 4