Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business GNU is Not Unix

Perens Talks About Open Source Risk Management 82

Posted by Hemos from the more-fun-then-roulette dept.
Big Sav writes "Here is a quick but good interview with Bruce Perens. It also raises the topic of indemnification vis a vis the SCO court case " Interesting interview - talks about Peren's new Open Source Risk Management company.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Perens Talks About Open Source Risk Management More

Perens Talks About Open Source Risk Management

Comments Filter:

  • Surprised (Score:2, Interesting)

    by andy666 ( 666062 )
    I am surprised that he didn't discuss the work of Jonathan Smith at U of Penn.

  • Self-promotion (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lukewarmfusion ( 726141 ) on Monday May 10, 2004 @10:08AM (#9106324) Homepage Journal
    Not that I can really blame him, but this interview is simply a promotion of his new OSRM company. Like posting an interview with your favorite movie star (who spend the entire time plugging his or her new film). It just doesn't seem like "news" as much as it is a commercial.

    • Re:Self-promotion (Score:4, Informative)

      by Kegster ( 685608 ) on Monday May 10, 2004 @10:13AM (#9106368) Homepage

      Yeah, Its a bit of a standard plug tour. Though he didn't say anything particularly contraversial in this article, unlike in the one he did for computerworld [computerworld.com.au], with its "if linux gets too commercial the developpers will throw their toys out of the pram and do a Cartman"

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday May 10, 2004 @10:30AM (#9106556)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Folks,

      This is not about SCO.

      Just pretend that SCO doesn't exist, because there isn't a chance that they will prevail. Then consider what can happen with software patents.

      Self-promotion? This interview was arranged by the company's PR firm, so sure. Macmillan calls me every week for something else, and this is the first time he's had a PR firm ask me to call him since publicity for my books at LinuxWorld NY. But I'd not get on the phone if I didn't think I had something interesting to say.

      Bruce

  • erm... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mirko ( 198274 ) on Monday May 10, 2004 @10:08AM (#9106331) Journal
    About the legal problems small users might face due to the SCO hype :
    With small users, I don't think there's a problem. I don't think they're visible enough.


    What if SCO choose to attack them like the ??AA went to war against p2p users ?
    Small users cannot afford lawyers, after all...

    • Re:erm... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by baudilus ( 665036 ) on Monday May 10, 2004 @10:15AM (#9106392)
      Unless they go after users who register their software for support reasons (RedHat, Mandrake), I don't see this being a real possibility. Also, the RIAA sues people under the premise that they are "costing" them money by providing a way to get music for free, for which they would otherwise pay (a ridiculous as we all know this is). I don't think SCO could even find out who is using it, let alone be able to prove monetary damages of any amount. Even if a suit is successful, how could they prove how much money they "lost"? The legal process would cost more than it's worth.
    • First, I am not a lawyer. If you're being sued by SCO, I reccomend you consult a professional. If you can't afford one, your area may have some organization , usually called Rural Legal Services (even if you are urban, it's often called this, go figure), which will provide legal aid.
      Optionally, find a lawyer you think you can't afford, tell him "These Idiots want to sue me. They're already convinced they can beat Chrysler, Auto-zone, and IBM first. Taking my case on contingency is the same as betting th

  • Is this a good thing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gregarican ( 694358 ) on Monday May 10, 2004 @10:09AM (#9106345) Homepage
    To me it sounds as if the group Bruce is on the board of is trying to exploit or otherwise captalize on the FUD of SCO actually winning a lawsuit. Which probably won't happen. Kind of reminds me of start-up companies which were around for all of the Y2K madness back in 1999. The FUD helped fuel interest, which really exaggerated the real deal.

    Maybe Bruce should start selling underwear to Iraqi prisoners...

    • Re:Is this a good thing? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by pointbeing ( 701902 ) on Monday May 10, 2004 @10:15AM (#9106389)
      To me it sounds as if the group Bruce is on the board of is trying to exploit or otherwise captalize on the FUD of SCO actually winning a lawsuit.

      Agreed.

      They're not really offering a lot for the money anyway - on the kernel developer side they offer $25k of protection. IMO if someone was to actually *win* a lawsuit $25,000 would be just a drop in the bucket.

      Also, why would I give $100k to someone who doesn't know that at least in this context 'panel' isn't a proper noun? ;-)

      • I think it's funny, because if the write-up had pointed out that this is the same company Pamela Jones from Groklaw is working at, everyone would have been drooling to praise it as cool and necessary, but since it's Perens everyone wants to rip on it.

        Personally I think in the world of risk, the risks from patent, copyright, and other "intellectual property" infringements are pretty low-- users can't really infringe copyright very easily and patents are just as easy to infringe with proprietary software a

    • RTFM? (Score:4, Informative)

      by JCMay ( 158033 ) <JeffMayNO@SPAMearthlink.net> on Monday May 10, 2004 @10:17AM (#9106412) Homepage
      Quoting Perens from the article:


      I want to be very careful about that, because OSRM is not capitalizing on FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt), OSRM is going around and talking about what the real risks and benefits are.

      • I did RTFA you insensitive clod! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gregarican ( 694358 ) on Monday May 10, 2004 @10:29AM (#9106540) Homepage
        That's a PR line. Lawspeak. It indeed is capitalizing on the FUD since any educated person in the technology industry knows that the SCO case doesn't have a leg to stand on. The only potential clients I can see are those who blindly fall for the FUD that SCO has perpetuated.

        Just like those consulting companies that were around in 1999 to ensure that no Y2K disaster was going to hit clients. I know some companies would go into people's homes and ensure they were Y2K-compliant. What a freakin' joke! Remember folks stockpiling food and readying themselves for living in bomb shelters? Of course it's an extreme comparison, but the basis is the same. Capitalizing on more ignorant folks' fears.

        • Re:I did RTFA you insensitive clod! (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          The whole point is that it's not just the SCO case. What if somebody who DID have a case turned up? What if somebody successfully sued a Linux distributor for patent infringement? Just because SCO's case has more holes than a colander doesn't mean that no case in the future can ever succeed.

          Plus even if there is no case, it can still cost a lot in legal fees before resolution: how much have IBM already spent, with the case still ongoing?
        • Just because it's valid PR doesn't mean the person speaking it doesn't believe it.

          And Bruce Perens is a pretty smart guy, and not, IMO, greedy. If he speaks, you should at least hear him out.
          • The last statement I personally am making about this story is that from a business standpoint they are putting all of their eggs in one basket. Clients will purchase insurance to alleviate legal fees of being taken to court over Open Source Software usage. If Bruce and the gang on the board of this company thought that SCO would take smaller companies to court en masse then they would be losing their shirts in selling this insurance and therefore it would be a bad business move.

            If Bruce "is a pretty smart
            • I suspect he see's it as a legitimate risk, but not something that's going to happen every day. At the very least, it won't happen to all of the subscribers.

              And I'm certain he doesn't think there's going to be a storm of litigation. Especially with SCO getting more ridicule than sympathy these days.
            • SCO is going down quickly and there is no risk that they will win in a way that would cause OSRM to have to pay someone. But SCO's not really OSRM's business, anyway. Think about software patents and the future.

              Bruce

    • Likely or not, it is a risk and could happen. Many companies are risk averse, and look for ways to mitigate risk. This company is providing a way for them to mitigate risk. Pretty much a straight insurance job, although the downside is that their business is really all around one issue, rather than the normal diversified portfolio insurance companies have (betting that not all 100,000 clients will crash their cars in the same year, but all will pay their premiums).

  • Necessary (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Plaeroma ( 778381 ) <plaeroma AT gmail DOT com> on Monday May 10, 2004 @10:11AM (#9106358) Journal
    For our less read posters http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=indemnifi cation In a perfect world, this service wouldn't be necessary. But, you really can't expect companies to take even imagined risks. If this helps people get involved in OSS despite all the SCO FUD, then job well done.

  • Bottom line is... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Monday May 10, 2004 @10:14AM (#9106382) Journal
    ...the claimed TCO of Linux has just gone up by however much Getting Sued Over Linux insurance you decide you need. Perens claims he isn't taking advantage of FUD, and he may well not be -- but at least acknowledge that this represents a 180 degree change from "No one could possibly believe there's any legal risk associated with Linux use and anyone who says otherwise is a Microsoft spy!"
    • ..and because it's so easy to get yourself sued. It is SO easy to find yourself in court over something just totally lame, BUT, it will cost your beaucoup to deal with it, no matter what. And our legal system is EXPENSIVE to dork around in, expensive, overly complicated, nuts in other words.

      Joe free software developer writes a prog, some companies use it. Then along comes someone with this vague patent they got back in 1986 and sues them all, running the odds that enough will cave that they will make
      • Well, first, Bruce Perens has been swearing up and down that this coverage has nothing to do with SCO, and is all about software patents -- but the OSRM site prominently features SCO-related concerns. (And, of course, there's no way this company would exist if it weren't for SCO.)

        But my point is more about perception than reality, anyway. I can't think of any piece of technology I've ever even considered using where it was suggested that specific insurance would be necessary to protect against patent infrin

  • What is risk? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 10, 2004 @10:25AM (#9106489)
    Most people think that risk is "probability of bad outcome weighted by cost of bad outcome", or somthing like that. It's not, because in a market, "price" reflects all probabilities and weightings, i.e. price is the "expected value".

    Risk is properly measured by the variance in possible outcomes, the amount of "spread" around the expected value, and probability does not enter into that.

    Risk has a value because every extra dollar you add to your wealth is worth less to you than the one that came before. So, upward "wins" in the variance are worth less than downward "losses", i.e. you should be willing to pay to eliminate risk, to shrink your variance.

    So, the economic "risk" of the SCO lawsuit exists with regard to the spread in possible outcomes, and has nothing to do with their probabilities. The value of insurance to you is based on your economic activity and your risk aversion.

    Insurance will increase the spread of Linux, not decrease it.

    Perens is capitalizing on his name, not on the FUD, since the article doesn't reflect that he understands risk in detail.

  • It is actually pretty ridiculous of SCO to even have this court case. As an example, I cite my dad's run-in with the US-PTO upon trying to patent a piece of software many years ago: they rejected his claim, stating that "there will NEVER be patents on computer software." Maybe they meant there SHOULD never be patents on computer software... who knows. Once again, it would be nice to see what SCO actually claims they "own", and how they can prove that "fact".

    • Re:How ridiculous is their case, anyways? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Once again, SCO are not suing over patents - they don't have any relevant ones. They are suing over contract breaches and putative copyright infringements (which look highly unlikely to succeed, I hasten to add). IBM's countersuit alleges SCO infringed IBM's patents.
  • Their contracts look very much like insurance, as stated by many in their responses, however what I don't get is this: insurance companies can profit (and their customers benefit) whenever the probability of the negative events happening is not correlated across customers. I get injured, the insurance refunds me with the premia paid by all.

    However, in the linux/sco case, if sco wins, ALL companies using linux will sooner or later have to pay. How can insurance work in this environment?

  • Peren's Outlook (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Inhibit ( 105449 ) on Monday May 10, 2004 @11:16AM (#9107033) Homepage Journal
    Having heard Bruce Peren's give a speech before and had a chance to hear some of his outlook on Linux and IP, he seems to have a fair handle on how it all works.

    From the interview it seems that it's an effort to provide some indemnity while making people aware of the possible IP/Copyright issues inherent in coding software in the USA (and probably Europe soon). They're offering a service to assess risk of malicious lawsuits and possible IP violation. Doesn't sound like spreading Fear, Uncertainty, *or* Doubt to me.

  • "Individual contributors to the Linux kernel gain access to the full resources of the Open Source Legal Defense Fund including guidance on how to best protect and defend their own intellectual property rights. They also receive $25,000 in legal protection from OSRM if they are named in future lawsuits involving their contributions to the Linux kernel. Membership for individuals is $250 annually."

    First, it seems to me that the Linux kernel developers should be getting this protection gratis from OSRM a

  • Windows users don't seem to need insurance - or, at least, no one seems to be selling insurance against BSA raids.

    But Linux users (at least big corporations using Linux) DO need insurance against meritless lawsuits??? Meritless lawsuits supported by whom???

    Hmmm. Sounds like protection money to me.

    Microsoft wanted to make running Linux more expensive than it was, relative to Windows. By threatening Linux through their proxy, SCO, they have succeeded in increasing the cost of Linux: Linux users need to tak

    • Microsoft wanted to make running Linux more expensive than it was, relative to Windows. By threatening Linux through their proxy, SCO, they have succeeded in increasing the cost of Linux: Linux users need to take out insurance that Windows users don't need to buy.

      OSRM is selling the idea that I, as a user, could be sued by a company like SCO because of some software that I use written by some guy I've never met. Huh? It makes no sense at all, that I can be punished because of the misdeeds of somebody

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close