[TUHS] Source code abundance?

[Josh Good]

On 2017 Mar  5, 20:15, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:
> 
> > Not be argumentative, but I do not think SCO matters at this point as I'm
> > under the impression that per IBM/SCO case the US courts have ruled - i.e.
> >
> >
> >
> > https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118678589019694632
> >
> > Court Ruling Gives Novell Copyright in Unix System
> > By
> > KEITH J. WINSTEIN and
> >
> > WILLIAM M. BULKELEY
> > Updated Aug. 11, 2007 12:01 a.m. ET
> >
> > A federal court in Utah ruled that Novell Inc., not SCO Group Inc., is the
> > rightful owner of the copyright in the Unix operating system.
> 
> Novells claims are not very credible....
> 
> I mentioned that the USL laboratories from AT&T (including the people who work 
> there) have been handed over from AT&T to Novell and later to SCO.
> 
> It is most unlikely that these people did not terminate their contract in case 
> the ownership of the code has not been transfered to the respective new owner 
> of the company.

>From here (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_Group,_Inc._v._Novell,_Inc. ) we get
to here ( http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/SCONovellAssetAg.pdf ).

That --horrendous quality-- PDF document states what assets were sold
and transferred from Novell to SCO, and what assets where NOT sold nor
transferred.

And I quote from that PDF:

"""
ARTICLE I. Section 1.1.(a). Purchase and Sale of Assets. On the terms
and subject to the conditions set forth in this Agreement, Seller will
sell, convey, transfer, assign and deliver to Buyer and Buyer will
purchase and acquire from Seller on the Closing Date (as defined in
Section 1.7), all of Seller's rights, title and interest in and to the
assets and properties of Seller relating to the Business (collectively
the "Assets") identified on Schedule 1.1.(a) hereto. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Assets to be so purchased shall no include those assets
(the "Excluded Assets") set forth on Schedule 1.1.(b).
"""

"""
Schedule 1.1.(b).
Section V. Intellectual Property:
	A. All copyrights and trademarks, except for the trademarks UNIX
	and UnixWare.
	B. All Patents.
[...]
Section VIII. All rights, title and interest to the SVRx Royalties, less
the 5% fee for administering the collection thereof pursuant to Section
4.16 hereof.
"""

It is therefore clear SCO did NOT buy the UNIX System V copyrights from
Novell.  SCO bought the UnixWare business, and the right to collect
UNIX royalties in the name and for the benefit of Novell (except for
a 5% fee SCO was to keep of said royalties, in concept of collector of
said royalties).

This is not an "oral claim" of a "Novell employee" that the Court "chose
to believe". This is a written contract. Upheld by the Courts. 

It is beyond my understanding how would you qualify all that as "Novells
claims are not very credible".

You were in a recent post asking for "verifiable facts", yet you expound
(wrong) opinion against what are, in fact, "verifiable facts".

Regards,

-- 
Josh Good