[link|http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/unix/story/0,10801,90205p2,00.html|http://www.computerw...1,90205p2,00.html]

The issue centers on SCO's interpretation of derivative works and their rights to ownership of them .....

EXTRACT
<<
Who's right? Looks like a nasty he said/she said court fight over what that derivative-works clause means, doesn't it?

But on the same day SCO's lawyer was explaining his legal theory in court, Novell was faxing something to SCO's offices.

It was a copy of "$ echo," a newsletter published by AT&T in 1985 for its Unix licensees. In it, AT&T clarified what that derivative-works clause in the Unix license meant. (Apparently, there was confusion about it even then.)

AT&T said it wanted "to assure licensees that AT&T will claim no ownership in the software that they developed -- only the portion of the software developed by AT&T."

In other words, AT&T never intended for Unix licensees to give up ownership of code they added to their versions of Unix. That was never part of the deal. And the deal AT&T cut is the one SCO has to live with -- even 19 years later. That's how contracts work.

Of the million lines of Linux code that SCO claims IBM hijacked from Unix, SCO hasn't identified a single line that came from the original Unix source code. It was all created by IBM. According to AT&T in 1985, that means it's IBM's to keep -- or give away. And SCO's theory that it owns Linux code appears to be kaput.

Of course, AT&T's blast from the past won't bring the gavel down on SCO's suits tomorrow. IBM, Red Hat and Novell are already in court with SCO. If a corporate Linux user joins them, even with good lawyers and help paying for them, any suit is likely to be painful and long.

But it helps a lot to have the company that wrote those Unix licenses on their side. Even if it's AT&T in 1985. Because 1985 just may mark the end of SCO's lawsuits -- and the beginning of Linux's future.
>>
Doug M

Took a look, & yup it does seem to state (repeatedly) that all licensees derivative works are 'ours'.

I recall at the time that AT&T openly licensed Unix, that there was great consternation in the industry that the license would be a trap that allowed AT&T to muscle in on the IT industry.

At the time AT&T were prevented by consent decree from entering into the computer industry. When AT&T got broken up that changed. Unix licensing was passed from Western Electric directly to the core AT&T company & this was what raised the spectre of AT&T moving in on computing. Another point of the time was that even the broken up AT&T protion of the empire, was still 4 times larger than IBM. At the time AT&T began wooing Unix computer makers & the two famous camps emerged UI & OSF.

The debate was heated and intense. In the end AT&T decided that in the best interests of all it should divest itself of Unix licensing and that was when it was sold. I can clearly recall that to each of the licensees it was paramount that the license not be used to control derivative works and that was why AT&T issued their clarification. It was that position that then allowed all Unix licensees to proceed with comfort.

As already pointed out. SCO are trying to pretend that the issue of derivative works was not resolved (in licensees favour). The lesson I see here is no matter how things are spelled at one point in time, there are always those who can & will assert completely different positions should the original position not be enshrined in clearly worded law.

Cheers

Doug Marker

great site.

I found this item (link below) very helpful in understanding how it came about.

Tks

Doug

[link|http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20031004190519196|http://www.groklaw.n...20031004190519196]