Creative Commons License

Blog powered by Typepad

« Monad, Lucovsky, and Integrated Innovation | Main | Open Source Software and Source Code Inspections »

15 June 2005


David Ascher

Nice summary.

Dan Clayton

A quick read of your blog makes me wonder why you missed the prime legal questions about newSCO. Did AT&T own any significant copyrights to UNIX when it transferred ownership to Novell or had it already lapsed into public domain? Did Novell transfer whatever copyrights and patents they held for UNIX to Caldera ( oldSCO ) when Caldera purchased some rights to collect licensing fees for UNIX and pass 95 % on to Novell? There does not seem to be a document transferring copyrights which is required by law. Did oldSCO transfer any ownership they might have had to newSCO? These questions need to be answered proving a chain of copyright transfers before newSCO can even begin to address why they would own software that IBM developed. None of their legal claims have any standing until they prove they own copyrights.

Jack Carroll

I've followed the SCO Group maneuvers from the beginning. Their behavior leads me to doubt greatly that legal merit has any bearing at all on their decision process. Most of their claims are so transparently flimsy, that I'm firmly convinced that the only purpose of any of their actions is to generate publicity so as to inflate the price of their worthless stock. In other words, their only revenue model is investment fraud. These people are swindlers, pure and simple.

Frank Haney

A couple of corrections, one to the article, one to Dan Clayton's comment:

1. SCO is no longer a Canopy company.
2. oldSCO and newSCO. The entity formally known as the Santa Cruz Operation and now known as Tarantella is the original or oldSCO. The entity formally known as Caldera bought some of the assets of the Santa Cruz Operation, changed its name to The SCO Group and is now often known as newSCO.

NB A few years earlier, Novell sold something to the Santa Cruz Operation which amongst other things enabled the SantaCruz Operation to collect Unix licence money on behalf of Novell.


Good point Frank. The SCO Group is no longer owned by the Canopy Group directly. The litigation was started in that light but is carrying on its own course. I've sometimes thought of the Canopy Group actions as sort of a reverse venture capitalist — investing in companies that then syphon money out of the market through litigation rather than building a business with customers forward. Maybe this was Canopy's way of disengaging when it looked like this dog doesn't hunt anymore, similar to the way a VC would move on from an investment that was failing.


You can tell customers that there's no difference between OpenSource (Linux) and Microsoft and they should read the indemnification by M$! All they do is to say that you have to stop using the software on notice or your indemnification is invalid. Then you are allowed to use it again once they have a replacement (IF).
Great if your company depends on that piece of software!


The comments to this entry are closed.