Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
> For those that do not remember the old Unix code was made available to us.
> First for a fee and then put in to the public domain. Please see for
> the code and misc...
>
> http://www.tuhs.org/
>
> Use the wayback machine to view the old SCO web pages for it.

Also these articles from the mail archive.

http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuh...ry/000019.html
http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuh...ry/000020.html

Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
> For those that do not remember the old Unix code was made available
to > us.
> First for a fee and then put in to the public domain. Please see for
> the code and misc...
>
> http://www.tuhs.org/
>
> Use the wayback machine to view the old SCO web pages for it.

That "make available" was done by Caldera, now known as "The SCO Group",
but we all know NOW that "The SCO Group" does NOT and did NOT own the
UNIX-code (SVR4 and previous versions) copyrights, and therefore that
"make available" by Caldera is void as it lacks just title.

Therefore, The Unix Heritage Society has no right WHATSOEVER to make it
available to the public, unless they get permission to do so by Novell,
the REAL right's holder.

Such is the wheel of Fortune...

On 2008-02-08, Pepe wrote:
>
> That "make available" was done by Caldera, now known as "The SCO Group",
> but we all know NOW that "The SCO Group" does NOT and did NOT own the
> UNIX-code (SVR4 and previous versions) copyrights, and therefore that
> "make available" by Caldera is void as it lacks just title.

Really? You happen to know this do you? Whatever it was that SCO
actually bought, one thing that definitely was included was
distribution rights. Only if there were restrictions on thoses
rights would SCO not have the right to make the sources available.
As far as I am aware the contract is not in the public domain,
although I admit I haven't looked for it. You appear to have an
anti-SCO axe to grind and 'new' SCO's management have certainly
done plenty to be ashamed of, but try and keep your criticisms at
least loosely based on reality.

--
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews@sdf.lonestar.org

Andrew Smallshaw wrote:
> On 2008-02-08, Pepe wrote:
>
>>That "make available" was done by Caldera, now known as "The SCO Group",
>>but we all know NOW that "The SCO Group" does NOT and did NOT own the
>>UNIX-code (SVR4 and previous versions) copyrights, and therefore that
>>"make available" by Caldera is void as it lacks just title.
>
>
> Really? You happen to know this do you? Whatever it was that SCO
> actually bought, one thing that definitely was included was
> distribution rights. Only if there were restrictions on thoses
> rights would SCO not have the right to make the sources available.
> As far as I am aware the contract is not in the public domain,
> although I admit I haven't looked for it.

Therefore, get the facts and then try again. The contract between The
SCO Group and Novell has been made public. You can read it, search for
it in Groklaw.

What The SCO Group "can distribute" by that contract, only The SCO Group
"can distribute" it. The SCO Group can not re-license the thing being
distributed from that contract, because The SCO Group does not own the
copyrights and ONLY the copyright holder can change and/or ammend the
license. Therefore, The Historical Unix Society has NO RIGHT at all to
re-distribute that material, because the re-licensing done by The SCO
Group is void and null.

The SCO Group can distribute the material (provided they abide to the
contract's terms), but no one else can do it, not even re-distribute it.
And certainly, The SCO Group CAN NOT change the license of that material
being distributed which is subject to the Novell contract.

Axe to grind, or hard facts. Take it as you prefer.

The historical UNIX code has been published and distributed by Caldera,
and probably they had right to do it. But they had no right to change
its license; AND nobody else has right (nor had right) to distribute it
or re-distribute it. At least, until Novell gives permission to do so,
or relicenses it truely, because only Novell can change the license, or
contract away the distribution rights.

On Feb 8, 2:53 pm, Pepe wrote:

> Therefore, get the facts and then try again. The contract between The
> SCO Group and Novell has been made public. You can read it, search for
> it in Groklaw.
>
> What The SCO Group "can distribute" by that contract, only The SCO Group
> "can distribute" it. The SCO Group can not re-license the thing being
> distributed from that contract, because The SCO Group does not own the
> copyrights and ONLY the copyright holder can change and/or ammend the
> license. Therefore, The Historical Unix Society has NO RIGHT at all to
> re-distribute that material, because the re-licensing done by The SCO
> Group is void and null.
>
> The SCO Group can distribute the material (provided they abide to the
> The historical UNIX code has been published and distributed by Caldera,
> and probably they had right to do it. But they had no right to change
> its license; AND nobody else has right (nor had right) to distribute it
> or re-distribute it. At least, until Novell gives permission to do so,
> or relicenses it truely, because only Novell can change the license, or
> contract away the distribution rights.

Copyright and license are two different concepts. Your analysis is
legal nonsense.

As far as that goes, the original Novell-SCO contract was a muddle,
too. The copyrights were granted to SCO by one appendix, but another
appendix apparently pulled them back. The Judge in Utah ruled that
this exception-to-an-exception was sufficiently clear that there was
no legal reason to listen to testimony about what the parties actually
intended.

But no appendix affected licensing or distribution rights.

--RLR

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, ThreeStar wrote:

> On Feb 8, 2:53 pm, Pepe wrote:
>
>> Therefore, get the facts and then try again. The contract between The
>> SCO Group and Novell has been made public. You can read it, search for
>> it in Groklaw.
>>
>> What The SCO Group "can distribute" by that contract, only The SCO Group
>> "can distribute" it. The SCO Group can not re-license the thing being
>> distributed from that contract, because The SCO Group does not own the
>> copyrights and ONLY the copyright holder can change and/or ammend the
>> license. Therefore, The Historical Unix Society has NO RIGHT at all to
>> re-distribute that material, because the re-licensing done by The SCO
>> Group is void and null.
>>
>> The SCO Group can distribute the material (provided they abide to the
>> The historical UNIX code has been published and distributed by Caldera,
>> and probably they had right to do it. But they had no right to change
>> its license; AND nobody else has right (nor had right) to distribute it
>> or re-distribute it. At least, until Novell gives permission to do so,
>> or relicenses it truely, because only Novell can change the license, or
>> contract away the distribution rights.
>
> Copyright and license are two different concepts. Your analysis is
> legal nonsense.
>
> As far as that goes, the original Novell-SCO contract was a muddle,
> too. The copyrights were granted to SCO by one appendix, but another
> appendix apparently pulled them back.

SCOX's management might want you to believe this, but it is not true. The
original contract very clearly excluded copyrights.

The second amendment then had some very vague language regarding the
copyrights, but in order for a transfer to happen, there must be a written
conveyance (copyrights are special in this regard), and no such document
exists. All SCOX has is a bunch of people who say "yes, we have the
copyrights, because..... well, we must have them, mustn't we?". I guess
the judge was not conviced by such posturing.

> The Judge in Utah ruled that
> this exception-to-an-exception was sufficiently clear that there was
> no legal reason to listen to testimony about what the parties actually
> intended.

One of the documents that came out was minutes from a Novell board meeting
held at the time of the original agreement with the original SCO in which
it was discussed that the copyrights would be retained by Novell.

ThreeStar wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2:53 pm, Pepe wrote:
>
> Copyright and license are two different concepts. Your analysis is
> legal nonsense.

Explain where is the contradiction, please. I am very clearly saying
that only the copyright holder can dictate license, and therefore as The
SCO Group is not the copyright holder, the BSD-style license they used
to distribute the historical UNIX code is void and null. I.e., they have
no right to put that code under that license. As a consequense of that,
The Historical UNIX Society has no right to distribute that code,
because they were holding on to that BSD-style license to do so.

It's clear, it's simple.

Moral of the story: you cannot trust crooks.

> But no appendix affected licensing or distribution rights.

Again, I said The SCO Group probably has right to distribute that code,
provided they do so while abiding to the Novell's contract terms. But
they have no right to change the license of the code, as they did, while
distributing such code. Therefore The SCO Group probably can distribute
the historial UNIX code, but The Historical Unix Society cannot, as they
have not being granted such privilege by Novell (who is the REAL
copyright holder).

I hope the reasoning is clear.

On Feb 11, 3:32 pm, Pepe wrote:
> ThreeStar wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 2:53 pm, Pepe wrote:
>
> > Copyright and license are two different concepts. Your analysis is
> > legal nonsense.
>
> Explain where is the contradiction, please. I am very clearly saying
> that only the copyright holder can dictate license...

Repeating a mistaken proposition does not make it so.

I can lend you (license you to use) my copy of Black's Law
Dictionary. What you can't do is then copy it without the copyright
holder's permission.

--RLR

ThreeStar wrote:
> On Feb 11, 3:32 pm, Pepe wrote:
>>Explain where is the contradiction, please. I am very clearly saying
>>that only the copyright holder can dictate license...
>
>
> Repeating a mistaken proposition does not make it so.
>
> I can lend you (license you to use) my copy of Black's Law
> Dictionary. What you can't do is then copy it without the copyright
> holder's permission.

I CAN perfectly and legally copy the Dictionary you lend me, but such
copy has to stay private and it CANNOT be distributed by me to anyone.

But a Dictionary or any literary works DOES NOT have the same protection
under copyright law as a computer program. Therefore your example is bogus.

A computer program CANNOT even be copied for private non-commercial
purposes, if the copyright holder doesn't give you permission to do it
(for example, via a software license, etc.). And much less, can it be
*distributed* without the copyright holder permission to do so.

Here the copyrigh holder is Novell, and I would like to see which title
does The Historical Unix Society has to distribute the ancient UNIX
source code (hint: a license furnished by The SCO Group to do so, is
void, as The SCO Group is NOT in a position to license code whose
copyright they don't hold).

(I'm sorry I have to repeat myself, but eventually you shall understand.)

On Feb 12, 10:39 am, Pepe wrote:
>
> I CAN perfectly and legally copy the Dictionary you lend me, but such
> copy has to stay private and it CANNOT be distributed by me to anyone.
>

No. That is a classic copyright violation.

Copyright means the holder has the right to prevent anyone from making
copies. There are "fair use" exceptions, but copying the dictionary
for your own use is not one of them.

--RLR

Pepe wrote:
> ThreeStar wrote:
>> On Feb 11, 3:32 pm, Pepe wrote:
>>> Explain where is the contradiction, please. I am very clearly saying
>>> that only the copyright holder can dictate license...
>>
>>
>> Repeating a mistaken proposition does not make it so.
>>
>> I can lend you (license you to use) my copy of Black's Law
>> Dictionary. What you can't do is then copy it without the copyright
>> holder's permission.
>
> I CAN perfectly and legally copy the Dictionary you lend me, but such
> copy has to stay private and it CANNOT be distributed by me to anyone.

Gentlepeople, this is a technical group, not a legal one. But the circumstances under which you may copy an entire work depend on various circumstances.

> But a Dictionary or any literary works DOES NOT have the same protection
> under copyright law as a computer program. Therefore your example is bogus.

See above. And yes, the same copyright law covers both.

> A computer program CANNOT even be copied for private non-commercial
> purposes, if the copyright holder doesn't give you permission to do it
> (for example, via a software license, etc.). And much less, can it be
> *distributed* without the copyright holder permission to do so.

See the above. The "fair use" exemptions for slight duplication are fascinating, and the lawsuits about duplicating copyrighted work even for backup purposes or data protections purposes for computer software and source code have been just fascinating over the years.

> Here the copyrigh holder is Novell, and I would like to see which title
> does The Historical Unix Society has to distribute the ancient UNIX
> source code (hint: a license furnished by The SCO Group to do so, is
> void, as The SCO Group is NOT in a position to license code whose
> copyright they don't hold).
>
> (I'm sorry I have to repeat myself, but eventually you shall understand.)

And protection of individual components will vary, due to the history of individual components being published by BSD before or contemporary with their publication as part of SysV or other UNIX components. SysV is not a monolithic source code bundle: it has various components in various fascinating states of copyright protection. The results of full operating system copyrights make rebundling and reselling or releasing the copyrights.... fascinating to contemplate.

In article , Pepe wrote:
>Andrew Smallshaw wrote:
>> On 2008-02-08, Pepe wrote:
>>
>>>That "make available" was done by Caldera, now known as "The SCO Group",
>>>but we all know NOW that "The SCO Group" does NOT and did NOT own the
>>>UNIX-code (SVR4 and previous versions) copyrights, and therefore that
>>>"make available" by Caldera is void as it lacks just title.
>>
>>
>> Really? You happen to know this do you? Whatever it was that SCO
>> actually bought, one thing that definitely was included was
>> distribution rights. Only if there were restrictions on thoses
>> rights would SCO not have the right to make the sources available.
>> As far as I am aware the contract is not in the public domain,
>> although I admit I haven't looked for it.
>
>Therefore, get the facts and then try again. The contract between The
>SCO Group and Novell has been made public. You can read it, search for
>it in Groklaw.
>
>What The SCO Group "can distribute" by that contract, only The SCO Group
>"can distribute" it. The SCO Group can not re-license the thing being
>distributed from that contract, because The SCO Group does not own the
>copyrights and ONLY the copyright holder can change and/or ammend the
>license. Therefore, The Historical Unix Society has NO RIGHT at all to
>re-distribute that material, because the re-licensing done by The SCO
>Group is void and null.
>
>The SCO Group can distribute the material (provided they abide to the
>contract's terms), but no one else can do it, not even re-distribute it.
>And certainly, The SCO Group CAN NOT change the license of that material
>being distributed which is subject to the Novell contract.
>
>Axe to grind, or hard facts. Take it as you prefer.
>
>The historical UNIX code has been published and distributed by Caldera,
>and probably they had right to do it. But they had no right to change
>its license; AND nobody else has right (nor had right) to distribute it
>or re-distribute it. At least, until Novell gives permission to do so,
>or relicenses it truely, because only Novell can change the license, or
>contract away the distribution rights.

And when this happened there was a reprint of the Lyon's Unix book
used in classes in Austailia. That was basically version 6.

I got a copy when it came out at [as I recall] $29.95. Last time
I saw a used copy of it for sail it was $130.

Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com