Editing SCO–Linux disputes (section)

===License administration standing===
The Novell to Santa Cruz Operation Asset Purchase Agreement also involved the administration of some 6000 standing licensing agreements between various UNIX users and the previous owners. These licensees include universities, software corporations and computer hardware companies. SCO's claimed ownership of the licenses has become an issue in three aspects of the SCO–Linux controversies. The first was the cancellation of IBM's license, the second was SCO's complaint against DaimlerChrysler (see ''[[SCO v. DaimlerChrysler]]''), and the third is the derivative works claim of the ''[[SCO v. IBM]]'' case.

In May 2003, SCO canceled IBM's SVRx license to its version of UNIX, [[AIX operating system|AIX]]. This was based on SCO's claim of unrestricted ownership of the System V licensing contracts inherited from USL. IBM ignored the license cancellation, claiming that an amendment to the original license<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031107212034397|title=Groklaw - Amendment X as Text|website=groklaw.net}}</ref> made it "irrevocable". In addition, as part of the Purchase Agreement, Novell retained certain rights of control over the administration of the licenses which were sold, including rights to act on SCO's behalf in some cases. Novell exercised one of these rights by revoking SCO's cancellation of the IBM license. SCO disputed the validity of both of these actions, and amended its ''SCO v. IBM'' complaint to include copyright infringement, based on IBM's continued sale and use of AIX without a valid SVRx license.

In December 2003, SCO demanded that all UNIX licensees certify some items, some related to the use of Linux, that were not provided for in the license agreement language. Since DaimlerChrysler failed to respond, SCO filed the ''SCO v. DaimlerChrysler'' suit in March 2004. All claims related to the certification demands were summarily dismissed by the court.