SCO's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

04-20-2010

Registered User

26,240, 27

Join Date: Sep 2000

Last Activity: 1 August 2008, 3:09 PM EDT

Posts: 26,240

Thanks Given: 0

Thanked 27 Times in 26 Posts

SCO's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Here it is, SCO's competing version of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:

04/19/2010 - 853 - Proposed Findings of Fact by SCO Group. (Hatch, Brent) (Entered: 04/19/2010)

SCO insists still, despite the jury's verdict, that the intention of the parties to the APA in 1995 was to transfer the copyrights, and they'd like them now, please. They also ask for a ruling that Novell can't assert waivers regarding SCO's claims against IBM. However, SCO says in the first footnote that it will be filing a "renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding copyright ownership under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), and, in the alternative, for a new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. If this Court grants the Rule 50 motion, SCO's claim for specific performance is moot, and if this Court grants a new trial under Rule 59, the Court may defer ruling on the claim for specific performance."
So, there you are, ladies and gentlemen. The SCO Group.
When Judge Dale Kimball ruled against them, they went to the media and the appeals court, and claimed it was unfair. They got their day in court. And now that the jury SCO asked for has agreed with Judge Kimball that SCO didn't get the copyrights under the APA, SCO wants this new judge, the Hon. Ted Stewart, to hand them the victory anyway, since to SCO it's obvious the jury got it wrong as a matter of law.

More...

Linux Bot

View Public Profile for Linux Bot

Find all posts by Linux Bot

CFREE(3) Linux Programmer's Manual CFREE(3) NAME
cfree - free allocated memory SYNOPSIS
#include <stdlib.h> /* In SunOS 4 */ int cfree(void *ptr); /* In glibc or FreeBSD libcompat */ void cfree(void *ptr); /* In SCO OpenServer */ void cfree(char *ptr, unsigned num, unsigned size); /* In Solaris watchmalloc.so.1 */ void cfree(void *ptr, size_t nelem, size_t elsize); Feature Test Macro Requirements for glibc (see feature_test_macros(7)): cfree(): _BSD_SOURCE || _SVID_SOURCE DESCRIPTION
This function should never be used. Use free(3) instead. 1-arg cfree In glibc, the function cfree() is a synonym for free(3), "added for compatibility with SunOS". Other systems have other functions with this name. The declaration is sometimes in <stdlib.h> and sometimes in <malloc.h>. 3-arg cfree Some SCO and Solaris versions have malloc libraries with a 3-argument cfree(), apparently as an analog to calloc(3). If you need it while porting something, add #define cfree(p, n, s) free((p)) to your file. A frequently asked question is "Can I use free(3) to free memory allocated with calloc(3), or do I need cfree()?" Answer: use free(3). An SCO manual writes: "The cfree routine is provided for compliance to the iBCSe2 standard and simply calls free. The num and size argu- ments to cfree are not used." RETURN VALUE
The SunOS version of cfree() (which is a synonym for free(3)) returns 1 on success and 0 on failure. In case of error, errno is set to EINVAL: the value of ptr was not a pointer to a block previously allocated by one of the routines in the malloc(3) family. CONFORMING TO
The 3-argument version of cfree() as used by SCO conforms to the iBCSe2 standard: Intel386 Binary Compatibility Specification, Edition 2. SEE ALSO
malloc(3) COLOPHON
This page is part of release 3.44 of the Linux man-pages project. A description of the project, and information about reporting bugs, can be found at http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/. 2007-07-26 CFREE(3)

UNIX and Linux RSS News

SCO's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

LEARN ABOUT DEBIAN

cfree