HP Clarifies Indemnification Offer For Linux Users 275
After HP extended an offer of indemnification to users who purchase Linux through HP, SCO issued a strange press release: in it, SCO claims that HP's action actually supports SCO's claims that "issues exist" with the Linux kernel's legal status. In an article at NewsForge (like Slashdot, part of OSDN), HP's Martin Fink roundly denies SCO's backhanded interpretation; a followup story quotes Bruce Perens, Linus Torvalds and ESR on the HP offer. Linus: "Indemnification is wonderful. It might be a cynical marketing tactic, but if people are asking for it, why not?" The first article also points out the limited nature of HP's indemnification claims, which are definitely not blanket protection -- installing patches not approved by HP could well make them wash their hands of your machine.
SCO claims that HP agrees that issues exist (Score:5, Funny)
Gift horse (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Gift horse (Score:2)
Re:SCO claims that HP agrees that issues exist (Score:5, Funny)
Not only that... (Score:5, Interesting)
...it doesn't even make sense. Why would HP indemnify if they think they're going to have to back up thousands of users with huge damages? There's no way HP does this if the lawsuit has ANY merit.
I know I'm preaching to the converted, but SCO's take isn't even logical within their own little world.
Re:Not only that... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not only that... (Score:2, Funny)
Objection, what has this to do with the trial?
Nothing your honour, I am just so sure of the defendants guilt that i can waste time rating the superhunks
*awed murmers*
Re:Not only that... (Score:2, Insightful)
No way (Score:3, Insightful)
The publicity is only worth anything to the linux crowd, which is worthless if they're only selling a few units. For this to mean anything, they'd have to actually sell units, and at that point, there's a constant ratio of Lawsuit damages/unit sold, and there's no way they come out on top if that risk is real.
It also puts lots of pressure
SCO claims that /. agrees that issues exist (Score:5, Funny)
doublespeak (Score:3, Interesting)
On a serious note, didn't SCO banter about how if IBM/(insert other company here) was so sure that SCO had no case, why hadn't they offered indemnification?
Even if I'm remembering correctly, it sure isn't surprising. I'm at work and don't have the time to research a link. Anyone care to find this?
Re:doublespeak (Score:2)
-or- "we consider it unfair to remove 50 million potential sales from each product we have to offer."
mmmyeah.
Re:doublespeak (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, I care, but I don't have the time, as I am at home; reasons vary...
Re:SCO claims that HP agrees that issues exist (Score:2)
Re:SCO claims that HP agrees that issues exist (Score:2)
The SEAL squad was going in to set up an ambush when they were, instead, caught in an ambush (possibly just an opportunistic attack) by the VC. As they hid in the cover from the attack one of the members of the squad (known for his offbeat humor) yelled to his squad mates:
Nice (Score:3, Interesting)
How thoughtful.
Indemnification is wonderful? (Score:5, Funny)
HP are rightfully covering their asses (Score:5, Interesting)
After all, what would stop you INTENTIONALLY adding in copyright SysV code to the kernel, and then asking HP to legally protect you from something that you should be responsible for yourself.
This is, of course, pointed out in the NewsForge article, but I doubt that more than half of
Indemnification is a SCO trap (Score:2, Interesting)
Now granted there are plenty of PHBs in the world who are clueness enough to think they need indemnificati
Re:Indemnification is a SCO trap (Score:3, Insightful)
Hooray!
Re:HP are rightfully covering their asses (Score:3, Insightful)
The major question I've yet to see answered regarding indemnification is this:
Why would customers even need indemnification against SCO? What action could SCO bring against someone using (but NOT distributing) Linux, even supposing the alleged code infringement did happen in the first place?
In other words, indemnification against what? As I understand it, if a Linux user isn't distributing software, they can't be violating anyone's c
Re:HP are rightfully covering their asses (Score:2)
My impression is that generally ignorance is a good defense for copyright violations -- if you could plausibly believe that the works weren
Re:Also, if you have a support contract (Score:2)
The disclaimer is mostly certainly a CYA move by HP, but it's a SENSIBLE CYA move.
Re:Better than nuthin' (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Are SCO and FUD synonyms?) (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Better than nuthin' (Score:2)
BECAUSE the claims are baseless.
Think of it this way. If I made a device which is practicaly indistructeble, I would back it with a solid waranty. This way I get to promise something that smart customers want without ever having to deliver.
Suprise (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always wondered (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:slashdot poll zealots (Score:2)
This was probably a retorical question, but yes, I do. I'm a manager/Senior Engineer at a small technology company, and doing the "right" thing is something I take seriously. I try to make sure my managees are interested in what their doing, and to treat them with respect and dignity. Same with our customers and vendors.
People go to work because they need to, but that shouldn't preclu
Re:slashdot poll zealots (Score:2)
I think the parent post was asking whether Darl McBride (et al) even knows the difference between truth and untruth. If he doesn't, then asking whether he believes he's doing "the right thing" loses its relevance.
Re:I've always wondered (Score:2)
Re:I've always wondered (Score:2)
Re:I've always wondered (Score:2)
"What I've never understood about the psychology of it is this: do they actually believe themselves?"
The latest psychology book: Darl McBride - The Man Who Mistook His Ass For A Hat
Re:I've always wondered (Score:2)
In other words, you should have an alarm siren going off in your head the moment you see the bosses lose their healthy scepticism and paint a rosy picture of the bright future.
Re:Suprise (Score:2)
The last time I tried to pick up a beautiful woman at a bar, she threw my pork tenderloin at my head. I never did get the bbq sauce stain out of my shirt. So sure, I'll buy some.
Related Quote (upper right hand corner) (Score:2)
Hey! There's that cat again. (Score:2, Funny)
Things that make you go hmmmmm. (Score:3, Insightful)
Something's afoot. I really wish that this had all been cleared up by Labor Day. It was a nice Summmer story (Summer of the SCO). But now it's just tedious. SCO has time on their side. The longer they can hang the cloud over it all, the better for them. FUD is a mysterious and marvelous thing.
Re:Things that make you go hmmmmm. (Score:5, Interesting)
If you match this article's date with the date of SCO's announcement of a fortune 500 sell it all adds up.
news.com article: CA settles Canopy contract suit [com.com]
I'm sure Canopy cut them a good deal in order to claim they had a fortune 500 company signing up for SCOSource.
SCO software (Score:3, Funny)
for (i=1; i num_companies; i++) {
if ( !indemnify(company[i]) ) {
press_release(company[i], NO_INDEMNIFY);
else {
press_release(company[i], INDEMNIFY);
}
}
OMG, I just released their source code! The horror
Re:SCO software (Score:2)
Errr... okay... (Score:5, Insightful)
later...
SCO: HP is indemnifying users against us because they know we're right!
So, let me get this straight... According to SCO, HP is voluntarily indemnifying users because it knows that by doing so it will end up paying out big cash to SCO to make reparations for using SCO's code? Sure. Makes sense to me. (Can you spot the sarcasm?)
That's some really SCO'ed up logic for you!
Re:Errr... okay... (Score:5, Funny)
This looks like the same logic as: "We haven't found any WMD's in Iraq. This proves that they are hiding them".
revenge of the bivalves (Score:3, Funny)
That's right, there is no defense against our clams! Go forth, unholy army of shellfish, and do our bidding!
(sorry)
In the SCOian spin (Score:2)
In fact, if that had been the case, it might not be such a bad business move. I imagine the next thing that would have happened if any HP customers were to be held liable, would be to sue HP for the same amount or more for giving it to them, so HP might as well take over
The Art of Controversy (Score:5, Interesting)
The scary thing is that SCO is probably quite familiar with this kind of thing, and knows exactly what it's doing.
Ironic (Score:5, Funny)
Kjella
The Saga Continues (Score:5, Funny)
This gets more amusing each day. It's like watching a bratty child try to argue against something they have little knowledge about.
HP: "We're offering indemnity to our customers who..."
SCO: "Ha! So you admit that your customers need indemnity!"
HP: "No, we're saying that should a lawsuit arise..."
SCO: "Haha! So you believe there should be lawsuits against Linux users!"
HP: "No, listen. We're saying that your claims..."
SCO: "HAHA! So you agree with our claims!"
HP: "Alright, listen you little..."
SCO: *fingers in ears* "I can't heeeeear you!"
Re:The Saga Continues (Score:2)
Somebody spank them already and put them out of our misery.
The sentiment at HP (Score:3, Funny)
The take that our department has is that Linux is well past the point where we have to worry about reliability. Our customers now ask for Linux support just in case they become disenchanted with Microsoft. We have about 350+ technicians who travel the US and Canada providing their expertise for Linux deployments in large organizations. HP never had a close relationship with Microsoft like Compaq did, and since we're on the driver's seat our ties with Microsoft are longer important.
Our next push is to deploy 64-bit server iron to most of the organizations while reducing the price of the 32-bit servers to half. What we intend to do is to convert the Win32 extension framework and recompile everything in gcc with the "-make64bit" flag. We have already re-compiled Word, Excel, Visio, Solitaire and Notepad. We're running into problems with Access and Microsoft Bob. The paperclip is at least twice as fast in Word 97.
Which is nice.
So... (Score:5, Funny)
HP code review? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:HP code review? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:HP code review? (Score:2)
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,8572
Also, they do give back to the community, just like IBM.
http://opensource.hp.com/
Jesus, Timothy, read the article. (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article as written by Roblimo [newsforge.com]:
After passing through the Timothy filter: "HP's Martin Fink roundly denies SCO's backhanded interpretation."
C'mon, man. At least make an effort.
Re:Jesus, Timothy, read the article. (Score:2)
If you run Martin Fink's statement through your CorporateSpeak Reverse Obfuscation Defenestrationator(tm), you'll find that he said more or less what Timothy said he did.
- Robin
Re:Jesus, Timothy, read the article. (Score:2)
Re:Jesus, Timothy, read the article. (Score:3, Insightful)
If he says that HP has no official position, that means that he denies SCO's interpretation that HP supports SCO's position, doesn't it?
Also note that Fink said: "HP's thinking was the indemnification was better than countersuits and other possible measures." In other words, even thought about countersuing them. They wouldn't think about that as a serious possibility if they believed that SCO's claims are valid. They probably decided to indemnify their customers instead because it gives them a marketing ad
Re:Jesus, Timothy, read the article. (Score:2)
Timothy:
sammy baby:
No, I think Timothy's interpretation is correct. There are two SCO asser
This sentence clearly reeks... (Score:2, Informative)
"SCO claims HP is validating its claim that it owns at least some Linux code by doing this."
Which follows the recent, If (insert company name here) doesn't indemnify you, it validates that there is SCO code in Linux. Since if there wasn't, you would indemnify SCO. But if you do indemnify, then you are proving the same.
I have car insurance (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I have car insurance (Score:2)
I have car insurance because my state requires I have it, and I would not have it if not required. I have insurance on my truck because it is worth enough that I want it insured lest it is stolen, or I do crash (despite not having done so)
The benifits of insurance for an $800 car to not make sense to me. For a $10,000 truck they make sense.
Unfortunatly we have some liability laws that mean I'd likely have insurance anyway, but it is stupid, and the world would be better off if liability insurance was i
This theory has already been proven. (Score:4, Funny)
This turned out to be even more fun than a scavenger hunt, so we filled in some gaps when we returned to California, thereby proving my theorum of indemnification to users who purchase Linux through HP, which can be found in LaTeX format on my website.
Sincerely,
Donald E. Knuth, Esq.
haha. (Score:2)
Getting lost? Simple analogy... (Score:5, Funny)
[HP] Buy and wear our armor chestplate and if they really do stab you you'll be protected.
[SCO] SEE!!! They have proven by you wearing their chestplate that you are banging my wife!
You call this our SCO Article for the day? (Score:2)
patiently waiting here for more SCO goodies..
Bruce Perens is wrong. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd rather they spent their resources countersuing (Score:3, Insightful)
I actually agree with SCO that HP's sending the message "phear free software, pay us for the right to use GPL stuff safely".
I hope companies are smart enough to stay away from this type of extortion.
Indemnification == extra cost you're paying HP, so they can buy insurance to pay people like SCO. This is a bad thing.
SCO's playing silly games (Score:3, Insightful)
SCO Now: Since HP is offering indemnification, that means they think we DO have a case.
They don't have a SHRED of continuity in their statements, do they? The above statements are BOTH demonstrably stupid, and mutually exclusive. Methinks Darl needs to take a logic class.
Re:SCO's playing silly games (Score:3, Funny)
Indemnity itself is fine. (Score:2)
Sun have been suggesting that without indemnity SCO may come after you (which is nonsense). They have even gone as far as suggesting that SCO are right which is a truly disgusting way of coercing customers towards your product.
- Brian
Has Eric Raymond Discovered Something? (Score:4, Interesting)
1) August 20th: In his "Smoking Gun Fizzles" [catb.org], Raymond agressively attacks SCO's claims. He even reveals that he has access to proprietary System V R4 sources.
2) Sept 3rd: Eric Raymond publishes "Comparator", a program for the comparison of things like large source trees, with the obvious intention of using it in the context of the SCO case. Eric says "I am grinning a grin that should frighten the thieves and liars at SCO out of a week's sleep." (see eweek [eweek.com])
3) Sept 9th - Eric writes his response [catb.org] to Darl McBride's Open Letter. He defends himself against Darl's personal attacks and misrepresentations. However, it is notable that he makes no claims that he believes SCO has no evidence, and he ends with:
"We will swiftly meet our responsibilities under law, either removing the allegedly infringing code or establishing that it entered Linux by routes which foreclose proprietary claims."
His comments today refer very strictly to the indemnity issue.
Surely Raymond has run comparator on the System V R4 source tree. What are the results? In his Smoking Gun Fizzles piece he had no hesitation to release a diff of Linux and his SVr4 sources, flouting it in the face of SCO lawyers. Yet now he is unwilling to compile an analysis of his Comparator results??
Does Eric Raymond's gaurded comments since releasing Comparator indicate that the results were not favorable????
braddock gaskill
Re:Has Eric Raymond Discovered Something? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think so. MD5 conparisons are good for finding exact matches not partial matches as would be used in a derivative/obsucated claim so I'm not sure his program would find all of what SCO is claiming. I don't know the details of how his program works but knowing the problem space it would take some time to run a comparison against copied snippets within a file since it would involve splitting up the file many different ways and comparing all of these chunks agains chunks of another source tree split up and MD5'd in a similar fassion. So to confirm a negative requires a lot of caution and due diligence to avoid getting egg on the face.
More importantly his program may find matches and each of those matches must then be researched to determine the source of the IP. Remember code can be indentical and still legal. So needing to do all the legal research required to validate each similarity as legal or not would take some time. I think any assumptions on what may or may not be found by Comparator is a bit premature given all the work needed to produce a meaningful conclusion. If Raymond simply threw out a number like "Comparator only found 2% similarity between code bases" he'd be just as guilty of FUD slinging as Mr. McBride claim that millions of lines of SYS V code match linux 2.4 kernal code.
Re:Has Eric Raymond Discovered Something? (Score:4, Informative)
Remember, the (sco released) "Ancient Unix" sources are publically avilable, as well as all BSD/FreeBSD/NetBSD and all versions of Linux. And comparator is FAST...it only hashes each snippit once.
It would not be hard for ESR to Comparator all publically available Unixes/Linuxes to his SVr4 tree and find any matches between Linux and his copy of SVr4 that don't appear in any of the other public unix variants.
That should provide VERY meaningful results. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would tell a LOT.
This shouldn't take ESR (or any guru out there who has access to proprietary Unix sources...) more than a day for the initial results.
The areas of Linux code which match could be made public on a Wiki or other web site and the community can comment on them. The community can then play clean-up and research and try to find the overlapping code matches, adding any additional source trees.
I can't honestly think of any reason ESR hasn't done this, except that he doesn't like the results he obtained. He did, after all, already go through the trouble of writing Comparator, which is most of the work. If I had access to proprietary unix code I'd do it myself.
braddock gaskill
HP has done the math (Score:4, Insightful)
...so HP has seen SCO's source. They *know* that there is no merit to SCO's claims. If there were a hint of a claim, you can bet that they wouldn't be leaving their asses uncovered with an indemnification offer.
Rebuff only at newsforge (Score:5, Interesting)
HP needs to clarify its position in the main stream press. What impression are investors being left with?
SCO is dying (Score:3, Insightful)
We should start a pool for which date SCO will declare bankruptcy, I bet on December 18th 2003.
Didn't SCO Say..... (Score:2, Insightful)
agreement (Score:2, Insightful)
SCO is right (Score:3, Informative)
Furthermore, it points the way by which companies could make open source software effectively proprietary: company A gets company B to make allegations and threaten lawsuits and then company A sells indemnifications. If company A plays their cards right, they come out looking OK, they don't run afoul of the GPL intellectual property provisions, yet they still can make money off the software when others can't as easily.
To me, these "indemnifications" from Sun and HP really amount to an insult of open source developers and an attack on the integrity of open source. The sooner Sun and HP stop this practice, the better.
Re:SCO is right (Score:4, Insightful)
Indemnification does not imply that what is being indemnified against is a valid claim. I'm indemnified through auto insurance against damages suffered or caused should I strike another car on the way home from work or if the other driver strikes me. That doesn't mean that it is OK to go play "bumber cars" on the interstate. HP is simply agreeing under certain circumstances to stand up for their commercial customers to any (unjustified in this case, IMBHO) claims made by SCO.
It doesn't make SCO's case any better (or worse), no more than my potential claim that I should be allowed to drive right over the slow sunday drivers who won't get out of the fast lane this evening on the way home justifies me to do so.
I think I get it (Score:2)
It all makes sense now.
Engage Universal Translater.... (Score:2)
HP has realised that it can bag a few orders from customers who are worried about SCO's Linux claims by indemnifying them without having to worry about paying up 'cos SCO have proved nothing.
Rather than deny the existence of substantial structural problems with Linux as many Open Source leaders have done, HP is acknowledging that issues exist and is attempting to be responsive to its customers'
SCO contradicted by market (Score:2)
Insurance usually costs money (Score:2)
Now let's look at SCO's claims:
1) "If IBM really feels there are no issues with Linux IP, they would offer to indemnify their customers."
2) "The fact that HP has offered to indemn
Acts ... not words (Score:3, Insightful)
If it were up to me to speak for the entire population of the planet except SCO I would send Darl a letter to the following effect:
Darl:
Nobody in their right mind believes SCO has any claim whatever with regard to Intellectual Property rights against Linux or any other Open Software products. Your actions show that you do not believe so either. People who have legitimate legal claims file lawsuits. They have no need to posture, threaten, or otherwise attempt to influence potential defendants. Consider yourself to hereby be officially laughed at uncontrollably by an entire community and know that you have made a fool of yourself and drove the final nail in the coffin of SCO. Take solice in knowing that, aside from being the detriment to a few unfortunate employees of SCO, you are by and large a harmless joke. We have, however, grown tired of hearing the same joke over and over, and it is beginning to get very old. Therefore, we will no longer be paying any attention to you or responding to your ridiculous diatribe in any manner way, shape, or form. Say whatever you want. Nobody believes a word you say, and so nobody is listening.
Sincerely,
The Open Source community
Thereafter, no articles would appear in Slashdot or any Open Source affiliated news source dealing with SCO in any way.
I'm going to file a patent (Score:3, Funny)
There are some inherent problems with this: What is impossible today might be possible somethime in the future. If I, for example, offer indemnification from all lawsuits brought by bisexual Smurfs, an alien race called "Smurfs" might be discovered in the future. One possible solution to this would be to just indemnify people from lawsuits brought by bisexual Smurfs in the Jurasic age, without the use of a time machine.
The second problem is that most people won't see bisexual Smurfs as a possility. The solution to this is a massive FUD campaign about how bisexual Smurfs are terribly offended by breathing, drinking, eating, [insert something that people do every day]. This FUD will create the demand for indemnifications.
All we need is a PayPal account, and a license to operate as an insurance agency.
I'm going to let people utilize my patented business model for a 30% cut of gross income.
Re:Without copyright, Linux users fine. (Score:2, Insightful)
Abolishing it would be simply ridiculous (and throws the GPL out the window, for those who care). I'm amazed that someone here would even propose it.
No need for GPL... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No need for GPL... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, it won't. There is nothing to stop companies from keeping their code under lock and key with or without copyright. And without copyright, there is more reason for them to do so: if they didn't anyone could come along and reuse the code, with no credit or consideration to the orginal author.
The purpose of the GPL is to keep code in the public eye. For that it needs copyright.
Actually, no. (Score:2)
This is a simple cost-benefit analysis by HP. The benefit? It might marginally increase its Linux sales by removing any fear, uncertainty or doubt from prospective customers. The cost? If SCO has nothing, then the cost is nothing.
Re:SCO is correct. (Score:2)
How do you arrive at this conclusion? It seems more likely that if HP is offering indemnity to their users they probably don't expect to have to pay anything. It just shows that they feel the FUD of SCO may be working to some extent, and want to ensure that people aren't afraid of buying HP products because of baseless claims made by SCO.
Re:SCO is correct. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SCO is correct. (Score:2)
No, its really not for a lot of reasons.
First of all, this indemnification is simply a form of insurance. If you think of it in those terms, if something is a sure thing, the cost of insurance is expensive, because the event will likely happen.
For example, if you want insurance against your dying someday, that will be expensive, because you (and everyone) will die someday.
On the other hand, insurance is cheap if the event won't happen. I'm willing to insure
oops, (Score:2)
Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't (Score:2)
Invasion, prior to plundering SCO.
rtfa (Score:2, Informative)
That's all it takes? (Score:2)
Hmm. All it takes is some random unverified babblings of some company to drive you off? Even though there is no precedence for sueing end-user customers for copyright or patent infringement?
This is NOT a delicate issue. This is all very cut-and-dried. Although IANAL, I can find NO legal precedence for SCO's threat to sue end-users. They may be able to demand that people stop using Linux or pay a lincense fee, but not until they have proven
Re:Why isn't HP being condemned? (Score:2)
The difference is that Sun now owns part of SCO (stock warrants to buy 2% of SCO at $1.83 per share).
Sun takes your money and gives part of it to SCO.
HP takes your money and spends part of it on lawyers to defend you from SCO.