Re: [ITPOLITIK] Ny PM om SCO's FUD og swpat ?

[Peter Makholm <sslug@sslug>]

Peter Makholm <sslug@sslug> writes:

> Erik Lange <sslug@sslug> writes:
>
>> Bevis for at SCO's anklager var falske.
>
> Hvorfor er Novells pressemeddelse et bevis for at SCO's anklager er
> falske hvis SCO's pressemeddelser ikke re bevis nok? Måler du udsagn
> efter forskellige standarder?

Videre om aftalen mellem Novell og SCO:
<http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1013229.html?tag=cd_mh>

  "This  agreement   is  kind of   murky," said   Mark  Radcliffe,  an
  intellectual property attorney with law firm  Gray Cary. "You end up
  with a lot of questions, to put it mildly."

[...]

  If the debate ends up in court, as SCO Chief Executive Darl McBride
  predicted last week, the agreement would likely be exhibit A, with
  both sides able to present passages that support their position.

  For example, while the contract leaves the copyrights with Novell, a
  section that gives to SCO "all claims...against any parties relating
  to any right, property or asset included in the (Unix) business"
  could be interpreted to give SCO the right to enforce the copyright,
  Radcliffe said. "The question is, even though (Novell) didn't assign
  the intellectual property (to SCO), did (Novell) assign the rights
  to enforce the patents and copyrights?"

[...]

Så måske er vi i den absurde situation af det kan være rigtig nok at
rettighederne indehaves af Novell mens SCO frit kan håndhæve
dem. Interessant, det giver altså mulgihed for at både Novell og SCO
har ret.

Men ovenstående er selvfølgelig stadigvæk fuldstændigt irrelevant i
spørgsmålet om SCO har ret eller uret i deres påstande. Den eneste
relevans er hvad der sker hvis det viser sig at SCO har ret.

-- 
 Peter Makholm     |              I have no caps-lock but I must scream...
 sslug@sslug |                                               -- Greg
 http://hacking.dk |