[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?
- To: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: [dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?
- From: mickey <mickeym(at)mindspring.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:45:51 -0400
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030401
From:
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,6873464%5E15317%5E%5Enbv%5E15306,00.html
"SCO has invested hundreds of millions in the development of UNIX and is
therefore entitled to a reasonable return on its investment. SCO
believes that major portions of the 2.4 and later versions of the Linux
kernel are unauthorised derivative works of SCO UNIX IP," it said.
This is a root issue in the copyright/patent/secret arena. The belief
that one is *entitled* to be paid for their efforts seems to fuel most
of these arguments.
So, are they entitled? Is that what "incent" was supposed to mean?
MickeyM