On BNET: IE users envy Firefox no more
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

By David Becker, News.com
Posted on ZDNet News: Feb 12, 2004 10:55:00 PM

The tag team wrestling match among software makers the SCO Group, IBM and Novell has entered another round, with Novell invoking its presumed right to clear IBM of any contract violations.

In a letter it sent to SCO on Wednesday, Novell lawyers essentially say that since SCO hasn't conceded to Novell's demands to drop its claims against Sequent, a server company IBM acquired several years ago, Novell will do it for them.

"Novell, on behalf of the SCO Group, hereby waives any purported right SCO may claim to require Sequent (or IBM as its successor) to treat Sequent code as subject to the confidentiality obligations or use restrictions" that SCO claims are part of its Unix contract with IBM, according to the letter.


Get Up to Speed on...
Open source
Get the latest headlines and
company-specific news in our
expanded GUTS section.


SCO rattled the technology world last year when it sued IBM, claiming that the computing giant illegally incorporated into its Linux software source code from the Unix operating system, which SCO controls. The case has since ballooned into a far-ranging attack on Linux, attracting legal attention from Linux leader Red Hat and the ire of Linux supporters worldwide.

Novell joined the fray early on, contending that SCO's purchase of Unix didn't include copyrights. SCO eventually responded by suing Novell for slander, saying Novell's allegedly false claims to controlling Unix have harmed SCO's business.

Novell's latest move cites SCO's failure to meet Novell's recent demand to drop the IBM suit, which relies on a "silver bullet" clause in the 1995 agreement that transfers Unix rights from Novell to SCO. That clause allows Novell to require SCO to "amend, supplement, modify or waive any right" under the license agreements at Novell's request and purportedly allows Novell to act preemptively, if SCO doesn't oblige.

Besides adding another layer of complexity to the IBM case, the clause could come into play, if Novell has to back up its offer to protect Linux users from legal liability. Novell has invoked the clause in previous attempts to protect IBM and high-end computer maker Silicon Graphics Inc. from SCO claims.

SCO disputed Novell's right to act on its behalf. "It is SCO's strongly held legal position that Novell has no rights to step in and change or alter the source code license agreements that SCO owns and holds with its Unix licensees," the company said in a statement. "SCO has no intention of waiving any of its rights against Sequent or IBM. We will deal with Novell on all of these issues in court."

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 57 Talkback(s)
IBM should pay, they stole the code = thiefs!!!
I want SCO to get their money, they stole the code.................

jose (Read the rest)
Posted by: Jose.Pinchero Posted on: 02/15/04 You are currently: Logged In | Log out
Poor SCO will be fighting on a lot of different fronts. DonnieBoy   | 02/12/04
sec filing guido_z   | 02/12/04
investors are getting ready to bail out? nite_w0lf   | 02/12/04
Amazing! IT_User   | 02/12/04
will m$ come to the rescue? or just watch sco die? (nt) stephen732@...   | 02/12/04
If you're a known padron of an arrested hit man, you'd walk to the exit... dicktaurus@...   | 02/12/04
MS involvment MG_z   | 02/13/04
Correction...they ARE the laughing stock.... nograin   | 02/13/04
Will be???? (nt) jnonneman   | 02/12/04
Purportedly? IT_User   | 02/12/04
Why hasn't anyone asked ... George Mitchell   | 02/12/04
looks like sco gonna need mote money JWatson77   | 02/12/04
why NONE of the former owners of Unixware have come to SCO's defense MG_z   | 02/13/04
(NT) Ding, Dong, The Wicked SCO is Dead !!!!! Bit's_Conscience   | 02/12/04
One thing I find curious is, why? No_Ax_to_Grind   | 02/12/04
Still hanging with SCO I see. zd-spam   | 02/12/04
Still playing dumb-dumberer, NAG? Of course IBM needs no absolution... dicktaurus@...   | 02/12/04
nothing to do with IBM per se hipparchus   | 02/13/04
Not what I read.... DarbyOhara   | 02/13/04
Thanks Darby, I was only asking a question but... No_Ax_to_Grind   | 02/13/04
I thought I answered your question hipparchus   | 02/13/04
Re: One thing I find curious is, why? Mack DaNife   | 02/13/04
You may well be right. No_Ax_to_Grind   | 02/13/04
Re: You may well be right. Mack DaNife   | 02/13/04
But you have to admit... No_Ax_to_Grind   | 02/13/04
Re: But you have to admit... Mack DaNife   | 02/13/04
Now there is the truth!!! No_Ax_to_Grind   | 02/13/04
Sequent, Not IBM MonsterPuppy   | 02/13/04
Yes, but why? No_Ax_to_Grind   | 02/13/04
Here's why... MonsterPuppy   | 02/13/04
Unfortunately that can't be done John Le'Brecage   | 02/13/04
But, IBM hasn't done anything wrong??? No_Ax_to_Grind   | 02/13/04
Novell is not really forgiving a "sin" dscherf   | 02/13/04
Not quite true. No_Ax_to_Grind   | 02/13/04
No, they haven't dscherf   | 02/13/04
Hard to keep all the players straight. No_Ax_to_Grind   | 02/13/04
Funny that you should ask... dscherf   | 02/13/04
I didn't know that. Maybe this time around? No_Ax_to_Grind   | 02/13/04
Maybe! dscherf   | 02/13/04
silicon graphics Louis Ross Focke   | 02/13/04
IBM bought Novell (just like MS bought Novell), but ... George Mitchell   | 02/13/04
OOPS! I meant 'just like MS bought SCO' George Mitchell   | 02/13/04
You guys are getting wrapped up in headlines IT_User   | 02/13/04
You are of course right... But, No_Ax_to_Grind   | 02/13/04
Can't play it ant any time IT_User   | 02/13/04
But why wait until now? No_Ax_to_Grind   | 02/13/04
Let's follow this IT_User   | 02/13/04
Like MS and SCO MonsterPuppy   | 02/13/04
My answer MG_z   | 02/13/04
This sort of moves IBM to the Background. nite_w0lf   | 02/13/04
actually no this does not afterbrnr   | 02/13/04
RE:To " actually no this does not" nite_w0lf   | 02/13/04
Finish SCO off.... nograin   | 02/13/04
Novell can require SCO... Update victim   | 02/13/04
The bottom line chawil@...   | 02/13/04
They stole the code, now they are stealing money! Jose.Pinchero   | 02/15/04
IBM should pay, they stole the code = thiefs!!! Jose.Pinchero   | 02/15/04

What do you think?

advertisement
advertisement
Click Here