Message 01526 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT01509 Message: 8/11 L4 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Impaired - is it SCO? preliminary thoughts.

i just got home from dinner
Let me mull over this and get abck to you tomorow

On Monday 27 October 2003 17:41, Russell McOrmond wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Martin Hardie wrote:
SCO say they own the System V (is that the one) UNIX that they go from
Novell.  Much of the anti SCo stuff is based upon a confusion of legal
terms and ideas (it is anti FUD and as such not much more helpful than
FUD) but the details will all come out in the evidence.

  I find this perspective interesting.

  I summarize my perspective on the SCO case in my submission to the
Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in
relation to Canadian copyright reform:

    Infringement still a problem, but with intermediaries

   While FLOSS solves a problem relating to infringement by private
   citizens, this does not mean we no longer need to protect our works
   from infringement. The current legal battles surrounding The SCO
   Group23 provide an example of the problems we must deal with.

   Important to this case is a lack of understanding of FLOSS
   methodologies either in the media or in the courts. With all the
   lawsuits and counter-lawsuits it is far too easy to loose the forest
   for a single relatively insignificant tree.

   This is a case involving allegations by SCO against the Linux Kernel24
   project of copyright infringement. To understand the case you first
   need to understand how FLOSS projects work.

   The Linux kernel as with most FLOSS projects is the open collaborative
   work of literally hundreds of software developers25. Each of these
   software developers retain their own copyright on their own
   contributions. In order for all these different contributions to be
   compiled together as one program each contribution has to be offered
   in a license agreement that is compatible with each other. In the case
   of the Linux kernel all contributions must either be licensed under
   the GNU General Public License version 226, or in a license agreement
   that is compatible with the GPL27. These software developers may also
   offer their contributions to different users under different license
   agreement terms, and many software developers do this.

   In the current court cases there is a dispute as to whether The SCO
   Group is one of those hundreds of contributors. The SCO group have
   thus far not disclosed what part of the Linux kernel is allegedly
   under their copyright, not allowing individuals or distributors of
   Linux to remove any infringing code. There is also a dispute as to
   whether The SCO Group intentionally contributed the code in a license
   agreement that was compatible with the GPL, making any use of that
   code in the Linux collection not infringing of their copyright.

   What is not under dispute is the copyrights of the hundreds of
   intentional contributors to Linux. What the SCO has asked for is a
   royalty payment for their contribution, but for one contributor to
   request a royalty payment is an infringement of the rights of those
   hundreds of other copyright holders. Where The SCO Group has made the
   situation difficult by not disclosing what part of Linux they consider
   to be under their copyright so that the origins of that software could
   be investigated, the other contributors to Linux are offering the most
   transparent and accountable access to their software: the full public
   disclosure of their source code contribution under a FLOSS license.

  Let me know how and where you disagree with this if you do.

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


"Mind you, I am not asking you to bear witness to what you believe false, 
which would be a sin, but to testify falsely to what you believe true - which 
is a virtuous act because it compensates for lack of proof of something that 
certainly exists or happened."
Bishop Otto to Baudolino


Thread: oxenT01509 Message: 8/11 L4 [In index]
Message 01526 [Homepage] [Navigation]