On Tuesday 28 November 2006 03:41, Michael Kerpan wrote: <snip> And that's what I for one want to see. The more Un*x branches we have in preservation for study purposes, the less chance a software pirate like The Societe Commercial du Ondit (The Rumormongers Company) Group has of succeeding in meritless law suits. I think someone should ask Novell to consider declaring the Un*x SySVRx source tree available under the GPL or some such license. And releasing OSF/1 and such SVRx derivatives from requiring a Un*x source code license, if they want to release their ancient source trees for preservation purposes. It would be a fitting end to the AT&T Un*x role in computer science history. Wesley Parish -- Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish ----- Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui? You ask, what is the most important thing? Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata. I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people.

Michael Kerpan scripsit: Novell claims otherwise, that SCO is not the copyright owner but simply has a license to distribute. -- That you can cover for the plentiful John Cowan and often gaping errors, misconstruals, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan and disinformation in your posts cowan(a)ccil.org through sheer volume -- that is another misconception. --Mike to Peter

In message: &lt;200611292004.11077.wes.parish(a)paradise.net.nz&gt; Wesley Parish &lt;wes.parish(a)paradise.net.nz&gt; writes: : I would say that since the copyrights on the Santa Cruz Operation : Unixware 2.1.3 man pages are Novell's, that Novell actually has the : copyrights. Doing man pages seems to be the role of the source code : maintainer. Ergo, they didn't sell the copyrights, they sold a : business opportunity. Copyright notices don't tell the whole story. They aren't required for new code (and Sys V is mostly new enough, unlike Unix V32) after the Berne enabling legislation. And when they are transferred, the old references aren't magically altered. : groklaw.net has most of the info and analysis. However, in this case, the bulk of the evidence is that Novell retained the copyrights. To transfer a copyright, one must do so specifically, explicitly and in writing. At best there's an implication that Novell is obligated to transfer the copyright, but even that's a stretch. Warner : Wesley Parish : : On Wednesday 29 November 2006 02:41, John Cowan wrote: : > Michael Kerpan scripsit: : > > That would never happen as it's SCO, not Novell, that owns System V : > : > Novell claims otherwise, that SCO is not the copyright owner but : > simply has a license to distribute. : : -- : Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish : ----- : Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui? : You ask, what is the most important thing? : Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata. : I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people. : _______________________________________________ : TUHS mailing list : TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org : https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs : :