Who we are   Organizations   Get Involved!   Helpdesk   Weblog   About FLORA   Server project   F.A.Q.

Election 2006 (and beyond): Digital Copyright Canada

Clarification on non-support for Linux for customers paying SCO royalty fees

From: Russell McOrmond <russell_-at-_flora.ca>
To: FLORA Community Consulting customers <support_-at-_flora.ca>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 12:39:03 -0400 (EDT)

(Please forward.  This letter is sent to FLORA.ca customers and other 
interested parties)

Fully linked article at:
  http://weblog.flora.ca/article.php3?story_id=462


  Many of you may have heard that a company named The SCO Group (SCO) is
sending out letters alleging that Linux is an unauthorized derivative of
their "intellectual property" and demanding royalty payments. Some of you
may have received copies of these letters.

  I need to inform customers that if they do pay the royalty payment to
SCO, then I will no longer be able to offer support for their Linux
computers.

  The Linux kernel, like other Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS)  
projects, is an international collaboration among many software creators.  
No single copyright holder can lay claim to Linux as a whole, and as a
collaborative project each contributor agrees to offer their work under a
common copyright software license. In the case of the Linux kernel, the
software is license under the terms of the GNU General Public License
(GPL).

  If any contributor does not wish to offer their software under these 
terms, then their only option is to not contribute their software at all. 
If software was included in such a project without the authorization of 
the copyright holder, and that copyright holder can not agree to the 
licensing terms, the only option is to remove the contribution. There is 
no legal way to retain the software in a FLOSS project such as Linux where 
those contributions are offered under incompatible copyright licensing 
terms.

  While the copyright claims of SCO are under dispute and not yet properly 
disclosed, the copyright claims of the almost 450 contributors to the 
Linux kernel are not under dispute. The GNU General Public License, as 
with other FLOSS copyright licenses, specifically forbids the charging of 
royalty fees as a condition for the copying or use of the software. By 
asking for a royalty fee, SCO is asking you to violate the terms of the 
GPL, and thus infringe the copyright of the software creators who 
contributed their software under the terms of that license.

  As part of my online resume, in an article "Open Systems, Free Software, 
and Why?", I specifically state:

    With this in mind I do not support computers which have illegally 
    copied software installed, and would hope that no potential customer 
    would ask me to break the law for them.

  Continuing to use Linux after paying SCO a royalty fee is no different 
than illegally copying and using the software of other software copyright 
holders outside of the terms of any other software copyright license 
agreement. It is for this reason that I can not support installations of 
Linux for customers who have payed the SCO royalty fee and infringed the 
copyright of the legitimate creators of Linux.

  As an active participant in the international copyright reform process, 
and as a participant in one of the earliest creators' rights alliances 
(the Free Software movement), it is both a legal and a moral issue for me 
to not infringe upon legitimate creators' rights. I will be acting as a 
participant of The Canadian Linux Interests Coalition (CLIC) to help 
protect the rights of the Linux creators and Linux users.

  If you have any questions, please contact me.

Thank you.

For more on CLIC, please see:  http://www.linux.ca/clic/


Further notes:

  To read the reasons why I do not believe the (misnamed) "Canadian
Alliance Against Software Theft" (CAAST) will be offering assistance to
stop this "software theft" see:
  http://www.digital-copyright.ca/discuss/2001

  Their US counterpart, the Business Software Alliance (BSA), has instead
been using its lobbying power to try to derail meetings at the World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on open collaborative models to
develop public goods.
  http://www.digital-copyright.ca/discuss/2011

---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or
 electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than 
 politicians should be bought.  -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/

Please read the FLORA.org Terms and Conditions before you submit information to FLORA.org
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign (USA) (Canada)	FLORA Community Web (FLORA.ORG) is sponsored by FLORA Community Consulting (FLORA.CA).