Re: Here is a REALLY good Groklaw article

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

Post #142,406 by dmarker 2/19/04 4:56:41 PM Reply	Re: Here is a REALLY good Groklaw article 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
Post #142,433 by folkert 2/19/04 10:29:47 PM Reply	Ding - Ding - Ding We have a winnah! A Free Linux License to the Winnah! -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* "Lately, The only thing keeping me from being a Serial Killer is my distaste for manual labor." -- Dilbert Calendar, January 4, 2004
Post #142,951 by dmarker 2/23/04 9:27:24 PM Reply	Re: Spent some time browsing Groklaw - as u say 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]

Welcome to IWETHEY!