Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Red Hat Software Businesses Caldera

Red Hat's Open Source Assurance Program 142

Posted by michael from the safety-blanket dept.
scubacuda writes "ZDnet and others report that Red Hat now offers the 'Open Source Assurance Program' as protection for customers if they get hit with a copyright infringement case from the SCO Group. From their website: 'A key feature of the Open Source Assurance Program is an Intellectual Property Warranty. The warranty ensures, that in the event that an infringement issue is identified in Red Hat Enterprise Linux software code, Red Hat will replace the infringing code. Red Hat's warranty assures customers that they can use Red Hat Enterprise Linux and related solutions without interruption. The warranty is available for all customers having a valid registered subscription to Red Hat Enterprise Linux or related solutions.'" Following close behind Novell and Hewlett-Packard, but it looks like Red Hat is not actually indemnifying their customers like Novell and HP, but rather is simply promising to fix any real copyright problems moving forward, which is something I think we would assume they would do in any case.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Red Hat's Open Source Assurance Program More

Red Hat's Open Source Assurance Program

Comments Filter:

  • Can't indemnify (Score:5, Interesting)

    by airrage ( 514164 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:35PM (#8034142) Homepage Journal
    Throughly useless I think. You can replace the code, but you can't indemnify 3rd parties. So, because anybody can sue anyone for anything, you'll still end up in court if your pockets are deep enough.

    Like trying to swat elephants with fly-swatters.

    • Re:Can't indemnify (Score:5, Insightful)

      by trix_e ( 202696 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:42PM (#8034230)
      huh?

      if you can't indemnify 3rd parties, who the heck can you indemnify? That's the very definition of the word, to protect another party against damage or loss...

      • Re:Can't indemnify (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        if you can't indemnify 3rd parties, who the heck can you indemnify?

        2nd parties, 1st parties, and 4th - nth parties. But not 3rd parties. Jeez, where'd you go to law school?

      • Re:Can't indemnify (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        if you can't indemnify 3rd parties, who the heck can you indemnify?

        If I license Red Hat Enterprise Linux then Redhat and I are the first and second parties. Why should I care what they do for third parties?
    • RedHat confirms SCO's baseless claims and FUD by these actions. Sco's anticompetitive behaviour and potential capital market fraud shall rather be subject of criminal investigation.

      • Re:Can't indemnify (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Trepalium ( 109107 )
        Don't be silly. Within a few hours SCO will release a press release saying that Red Hat's actions prove that there are flaws in the Linux development process, and that Red Hat is putting themselves at risk. You gotta remember SCO logic. IBM doesn't indemnify -- IBM knows there's problems with Linux. HP does indemnify -- HP knows there's problems with Linux. You simply cannot win against this kind of logic.
    • Under an arrangement like this, the party being sued would have Red Hat to pay their expenses, which would be a lot more appealing than shelling out for lawyers on their own for a baseless lawsuit. Red Hat is clearly not worrying about actually losing one of these cases since they know what SCO's chances are.
  • but rather is simply promising to fix any real copyright problems moving forward, which is something I think we would assume they would do in any case.

    So, they are promising, in case they are slapped with a cease-and-desist order, to cease and desist. Whatever next?

    • No, they would only cease and desist shipping the forbidden code to people who have the insurance, and not replace it for all others. Why would anybody pay for it otherwise?
    • This is actually one of the best ideas I ever heard. Of course stating that we will replace the code is stating the obvious (that's what linux hackers been saying all along) but what matters is the 'smell' of this statement: it smells professional and businesslike. And most importantly: it is a proactive document.

      Also, it might provide some legal protection against alleged 'willful' infringment. If they can point their fingers to their Open Source Assurance Plan whenever they are brought to courts by a party claiming infringment, they have the acting in 'good faith' argument on their side, unless they won't live up to their promises (which is _very_ unlikely).

      You might say this Plan is just words, but still, it has an important side-effect. Those who don't read groklaw daily, but know about SCO's fiasco, can now call RedHat whenever they receive a threatening letter. Of course, they could have called them anytime, but this document is like a message: call us if someone contacts you claiming infringment. This puts customers in touch with RedHat first, and RH can tell directly to their clients (who, as I said, don't necessarily read groklaw) what this case is about, and SCO failed to pinpoint any infringing code.

  • The Ultimate Game of Poker (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Newspimp ( 723202 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:35PM (#8034149)
    Seeing as SCO can prove just about diddly, I don't think the RedHat Legal Code Change team will have much to do. The cards are being called SCO. Bluff time is over.
    • Actually, I'm thinking it's more of a game of Russian Roulette - and there's a full clip in the gun.
      SCO is definitely trying to get someone else to be next.
    • One of the principles of inadvertent commercial copyright infringement is that the copyright owner has to identify the infringing matter such that the infringer can takes steps to mitigate the damages. That is, before SCO can collect damages from anyone, they must identify the infringing code, show ownership of the copyright and give the infringer(s) a chance to replace the infringing code. Only if those infringing don't take effective steps to mitigate the infringement after SCO has identified the specif

  • Money? (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So this doesn't indemnify? Sounds like they offer to fix the code and it will give you access to the pool of money to help out (which won't last long if the bad news comes.)

    Am I missing something here?

  • indemnity? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by trix_e ( 202696 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:38PM (#8034183)
    I'm not sure having Red Hat indemnify me or my company would give me the warm fuzzies anyway...

    for indemnification to be meaningful you have to assume that the pockets behind it are deep enough to be able to actually pay out and protect you when (god forbid) the time comes.

    Red Hat doesn't have enough of a track record for their promise to protect me to mean too much to me.

    Yeah, replacing the ostensibly offending code is nice, but it won't get me off the hook if I've already been using something that has been found to be infringing.

    With all that said you have to really believe that there is a reasonable shot of SCO succeeding for any of this to be terribly meaningful to you...

    • Re:indemnity? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Rhubarb Crumble ( 581156 )
      Red Hat doesn't have enough of a track record for their promise to protect me to mean too much to me.

      Exactly, and this is why this may do as much harm as good. Think about it in the context of RH trying to show people that "yes, we're a serious software company, not a bunch of GNU/hippies".

      Obviously they have to offer something to counter the FUD, if they want people to buy their products. The only question is, will it backfire, as their "something" doesn't cut it? Will it cause potential clients to go

      • Clue: take a look at the IP indemnification and warranties "real companies" in the software industry like Microsoft and HP provide.

        Clue #2: They're not very impressive, where they exist at all.

    • Yeah, replacing the ostensibly offending code is nice, but it won't get me off the hook if I've already been using something that has been found to be infringing.

      I'm not sure how US laws work in this case (or our own European ones, for that matter), but I would assume that SCO could not do a lot to companies using Linux, if these companies have obtained the software in good faith. Even a demand for a cease-and-desist order would be mitigated by a reasonable judge, and a company that obtained the infringi

    • Yeah, replacing the ostensibly offending code is nice, but it won't get me off the hook if I've already been using something that has been found to be infringing.

      What hook is that? I have to admit I haven't clearly understood this part of the case. SCO's seems mostly irrational, and I don't appreciate their business plan, but their refusal to show the offending source might be understandable if it means that the offending users (such as Red Hat or Novell) could just wipe out the infringing code and be d

  • SCO has same thing (Score:4, Funny)

    by swordboy ( 472941 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:39PM (#8034195) Journal
    SCO has a plan to counter this. It is called the "Open Sores" program.

  • Nice gesture (Score:3, Interesting)

    by JRob007 ( 704655 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:40PM (#8034197)
    Its nice to see that even though this is something that they would fix anyways, they are saying it publicly. To many times coporations words and actions imply that they will do something, only to not follow through. Its nice to see a company take a stand and say out loud, what they are going to do.

  • How will this actually work? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sean80 ( 567340 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:40PM (#8034200)
    I'm not entirely clear how this would work out for customers, so a thought experiment. Say SCO successfully proves that the Linux thread scheduling code is a copyright violation. What does Red Hat do next? Sure, they could rewrite it, but would companies which are now running their flight booking apps, and (don't take me too literally here) their nuclear power station control programs on the Linux kernel be happy about this?

    It would appear to me that the strength of Linux is its history and stability. Take that way, and trouble's a comin'?

    • Bad example (Score:3, Interesting)

      by roystgnr ( 4015 )
      The thread scheduling code has been rewritten, repeatedly IIRC. I suspect if there were any problems there, Red Hat would just revert to a previous scheduler, and take any performance hit in exchange for the security of using an already-tested chunk of code.

      If you look at the examples SCO has actually brought up as "copyright infringement", things get even better. Linux's SGI malloc had already been deleted for technical reasons by the time they pointed it out, Linux's BSD packet filter was an original r
    • The real worry should not be about the SCO case, since they clearly do not have one, but about future cases. What if somebody comes forward with an infringement claim that they can actually prove? They would have to be able to show that their code had been placed into Linux without proper authorization. Linux distributors could remove it and issue a patch for customers to apply and this should get the users off the hook, but who would then be at fault for the past infringement? I assume the only person that

  • Issues about exposure to code? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LinuxHam ( 52232 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:40PM (#8034202) Homepage Journal
    Warning: DNRA

    Seems like a strange thing to offer. Here at work, once you get exposed to open source code, you can never go back to dealing with internal code merely due to the risks that algorithms you develop internally may accidentally be recreated in open source work.

    How can RH say that they will replace your code with non-tainted code if the tainted code is the only way they've seen for approaching a problem. Seems like they need the equivalent of an optoisolator between their tainted developers and non-tainted developers. A white room approach with a description of the goal slid under the door.
    • Wow your company is paranoid... and I'd say abnormally so.

      Usually it goes the other way... once you are exposed to Closed source code, you can never be employed writing the same Closed source code for another vendor. Example: BIOS clean room development.

      In the open source world, ideas are traded fairly freely. It's easy not to copy someone else's code. It really is. Open source guys really don't care if you copy their ideas. They won't sue you for that. Now your closed source could leak out one day. But t

    • Here at work, once you get exposed to open source code, you can never go back to dealing with internal code merely due to the risks that algorithms you develop internally may accidentally be recreated in open source work.

      Sorry, that just seems basakwards. There is no problem with "recreating algorithms" from open source software, since it is protected by copyrights, not by patents. Some licences (e.g. BSD) will even let you copy source code as long as you give credit where credit is due.

      I'd say you

      • Re:Do you work at SCO by any chance? (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        My description was not very clear. I was trying to describe how my employers works hard to separate developers working on closed source commercial products from those making contributions to the open source community. This is to avoid accidentally publishing proprietary algorithms that the company did not want released with a particularly generous license. You have to be careful about who's working on what, and what kinds of algorithms each person needs to develop for each class of software.
      • His clarification was a good one, and I think it addresses your points. However, I do want to point out one innacuracy in what you've said:

        "Some licences (e.g. BSD) will even let you copy source code as long as you give credit where credit is due."

        You need to either remove the parenthetical there or qualify it. The BSD license has not had such a restriction for years now.

        • You need to either remove the parenthetical there or qualify it. The BSD license has not had such a restriction for years now.

          My bad. How about "(e.g., BSD from my fuzzy recollection of what it said the last time I actually read it)"?

          -- MarkusQ

    • Where do you get programers then? I assume that you wouldn't hire me because I've worked for a different company before, and I might recreate something that the previous company did. Seriously, this boggles my mind, I've had access to source code from 2 different companies, plus a bunch of code [mostly trivial but not all] in school. I could accidentally be coping some of that code into your products.

    • I suggest code medication to stop the spread to uninfected software. Gehsunheit!

  • The least they could do. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by osewa77 ( 603622 ) <naijasms&gmail,com> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:41PM (#8034206) Homepage
    Being that this is literally the least they could do, this situation is an example of what it means to maximize profits by minimizing costs :-)

  • This is a better solution than the others (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MajorDick ( 735308 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:41PM (#8034212)
    IMHO, this is a MUCH better solution, while I dislike SCO and their tactics, there MAY be some validity to their point , afterall look at how many contributions have been made, its happened before in opensource where someone included copyrighted code (yes I know what they have thus far claimed cant be verified) BUT what happens if it does ?

    Remove the code ! I trust RedHat to replace the code quickly and effectivley, RH has made tons of contributions to linux. The others offer to absolve financial IF there is infringing code, RH says hey dont worry well replace the code so those infringments dont apply.

    I like this solution much better being a RedHat customer.
    • Actually, this "sollution" is so obvious that it is implied the others are using it in addition to their more generous and honorable indemnification offers.

      Think about it for a second. If SCO wins, then the companies distributing Linux are legally obligated to change the offending code. Duh.

      Red Hat to customers: we'll do what the law requires to help you out!
      • If SCO wins, then the companies distributing Linux are legally obligated to change the offending code.

        No, they're not. In such a (purely hypothetical and unlikely) case, they'd be obligated only to cease distributing the offending code. They could all sit around and wait for someone else to create a replacement.

    • This move also has one SIGNIFICANT advantage. Anyone can still modify the code after it comes from Redhat and still be under warranty for the specific product supplied by Redhat (although I imagine the new code wouldn't be under warranty). They can be assured that the base they are working on is rock solid. To me that is more useful than having to check with your distributor every time you wanted to change something. It also doesn't lock a person in to an expensive service agreement. It is a more flexi

  • All good and well, but... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Zigg ( 64962 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:41PM (#8034219)

    It seems to me that SCO's pathetic case is shifting away from copyright and into ideas. If a ruling comes down saying that, for example, nobody but SCO can use the methods involved in a critical feature of RHE, what happens then?

    • I grant that this is a valid "What if?" question, but the probability that the ruling will ultimately go their way is so remote it'll take the Hubble Space Telescope to read the first nonzero digit after the decimal point. Their case is really that bad.

    • Only patents protect ideas. SCO has made no patent claims, because they have no relevant patents. Therefore no court will rule as you suggest.

    • If a ruling comes down saying that, for example, nobody but SCO can use the methods involved in a critical feature of RHE, what happens then?

      A judge cannot do this based on copyrights and trade secrets, you need to have a patent, which SCO does not have.

  • Management (Score:3, Insightful)

    by the_mad_poster ( 640772 ) <shattoc@adelphia.com> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:42PM (#8034226) Homepage Journal

    ...something I think we would assume they would do in any case.

    Managers and lawyers don't care about the facts unless those facts are in writing.

    Of course they'd fix it going forward, but it gives manadrones and legal eagles a warm, fuzzy feeling to see documents that actually say that.

  • Don't worry too much about how it will work (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rm007 ( 616365 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:44PM (#8034247) Journal
    This is, after all, first and foremost a bit of marketing. Red Hat is trying to get the message out to customers and would-be customers that the whole SCO thing does not create uncertainty or risk over the purchase or use of their product.
  • ...because RedHat [yahoo.com] doesn't have the cash in the bank for that, unlike Novell [yahoo.com] and IBM [yahoo.com].

  • A business manuever (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JSkills ( 69686 ) <.jskills. .at. .goofball.com.> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:45PM (#8034267) Homepage Journal
    Red Hat is addressing SCO's flailing attempts to scare people (and suck money) with about as much effort as is deserved for such an obviously groundless lawsuit - by providing some lip service agreement to their customers that they'll bear the brunt if the customer is ever sued.

    To echo some earlier posters, yes it is legally useless, but my guess is that they feel they can offer it since they'll know they'll never need to follow through. As in ... "Sure, if God ever showed up on earth to judge you, I'd take the blame for your sins.".

  • is this possible? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mcmonkey ( 96054 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:45PM (#8034268) Homepage
    The warranty ensures, that in the event that an infringement issue is identified in Red Hat Enterprise Linux software code, Red Hat will replace the infringing code. Red Hat's warranty assures customers that they can use Red Hat Enterprise Linux and related solutions without interruption.

    How can this be possible? If there is a case where Red Hat software contains infringing code, and Red Hat cannot come to an agreement with the code's owner on continuing use, Red Hat is prepared to replace the infringing code immediately? I presume use without interruption means support without interruption.

    If Red Hat has a complete code base in wings so that any arbitrary bits of code found to be infringing can be replaced, and Red Hat is more sure of its legal standing on the replacement code (since it is meant to be used in event an existing infringement is found), why not just release that code?

    • Yes? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bstadil ( 7110 )
      First if there is infringing code it is RH or rather first the person that submitted the code that bears the responsability.

      In the case you mention the court will normally allow a period to remove the infringing code, so as not to impose unneccerary hardship on innocent victims.

      In addition the Copyright owner has a duty to mitigate damages, in case they want to be awarded Damages by the court. The latter by the way the latter is why SCO will never get anything from the Linux community in case hell free

      • In addition the Copyright owner has a duty to mitigate damages, in case they want to be awarded Damages by the court.

        Yep, they have instead done everything to maximize damages, but this will backfire in court.

        IANAL

    • It's safe to say that any infirnging code will be expunged in a manner of hours. Redhat pushes out a new iso within a week and everything is hunky dory.

  • Replace the code? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pe1chl ( 90186 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:45PM (#8034270)
    The warranty ensures, that in the event that an infringement issue is identified in Red Hat Enterprise Linux software code, Red Hat will replace the infringing code.

    What use is that? When the SCO case really holds up, the issue is not to replace the code but to pay them their royalties. Those payments is what should be guaranteed, not the replacement of the code. Such a replacement will be just as free as the original code.

    • Re:Replace the code? (Score:1, Informative)

      by bro1 ( 143618 )
      What use is that? When the SCO case really holds up, the issue is not to replace the code but to pay them their royalties.

      Why would a 3rd party have to pay? If there were an infriging code in Linux kernel this would just mean that:

      1. IBM or whoever inserted the code would have to deal with SCO
      2. Infriging code would have to be removed from Linux kernel and replaced with new one
      3. A company which does not upgrade to the new untainted version of Linux would have to pay royalties

  • Open Source Assurance Program (Score:3, Funny)

    by T3kno ( 51315 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:46PM (#8034285) Homepage
    Funny, I thought that was RedHat swearing that they only use and provide open source software. Oh wait, that's not true either.
  • doesn't the fact that the big businesses protecting Linux now means that when Linus decided against a traditional GNU licence and allowed businesses to make money with his work he has done the right thing and *that the GNU licence as it stands right now will always have some legal existence problems*?
    • Huh? Linux is released under a license which is nearly identical to the GPL, with slight modifications to allow binary drivers to be linked with it. Those haven't much to do with this issue. However, nice troll otherwise.

  • Red Hat Transmits the Community Offer ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by leoaugust ( 665240 ) <leoaugust AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:47PM (#8034290) Journal

    The Linux Community has already offered to rip out the infringing code and replace it once it is identified. Red Hat has understood that the community is going to live to its word and has formalized this into an offer of "Intellectual Property Warrant." This formal offer on behalf of the community may be more acceptable to the business folks rather than the diffuse commitments of the Linux Community. I think that's all there is to it.

    • Exactly... This is the first time I heard about a linux distributor promissing to take out the offending code. Now when SCO claims the only possible remedy is that end users should pay a huge licensing fee, RedHat can point to this and say they have another way to deal with the problem.

      The distributors or the ones that claimed copyright on SCO code are the ones that should be getting sued or charged licensing fees, not the end users. If you buy a book which has part of it illegally copied from another

  • SCO's flawed strategy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Crayola ( 250908 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:49PM (#8034317)
    This isn't just a matter of Red Hat "doing what they should" in case of copyright infringement -- they're offering to be the ones to fix copyright violations in Linux even if they were never the ones who copied the code. This clears up the whole "who'll fix it?" issue for corporate customers. (Of course, every Linux developer under the sun has offered to do the same, but this is a legal deal that CIOs can sink their teeth into).


    The problem SCO is facing is this: they want to sell Linux "licenses" because their intellectual property is supposedly in there. And let's be clear -- it's not patent, trade secret, or trademark IP but copyright IP. But as soon as they say "we own this", the code can get yanked within days or weeks and re-written. So the licenses are worthless, which is why they're being so coy about pointing to the code (aside from silly claims on the ABI headers)


    Of couse, they're suing IBM, alleging contract violations for letting their Super Special (and mysteriously Secret) stuff into Linux and claiming AIX, etc is a derivative of UNIX system V. And maybe there is a thin legal thread that might encumber AIX.


    But who signed that contract on behalf of Linux? No one. Linux might have a few lines of copied code, but with no contract with SCO, there's no legal reason SCO gets to "own" Linux by calling it a derivative -- you'd need a contract for that.


    So even if they're right, they're hosed. And I have my doubts about how right they are.

  • Peace of mind for the customer (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aquabat ( 724032 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:49PM (#8034319) Journal
    If we assume SCO somehow convinces a judge that they own something in Linux, then the most they can do to an end user is demand that the user either sign a contract that allows them to continue using that part of Linux, or stop using that part of Linux.

    RedHat is saying to its customers "You can keep using our product without worry: We'll be right over to replace any part of your RedHat Linux solution which SCO can convince a judge they own."

    RedHat has it right. They know SCO can't sue an end user for breach of contract if SCO doesn't have a contract with the end user.

    • If SCO can show they own part of Linux, they can also get damages for the use of their code. Even if the offending code is replaced at once, they can still be awarded damages based on past usage.

      Copyrights are subject to "strict liablility" [albany.edu], which means that damages can be awarded even if the infringer did not know they were infringing.

      • But in this case wouldn't the infringer be RedHat and not the Linux user? Bowie/Queen went after Vanilla Ice not all the idiot kids who bought the CD.

        And even if the users are the infringers, then if it is shown that the code transfer went the other way, that is SCO lifted code from Linux, does that mean the FSF/Linus can sue SCO users?
        • Anyone who made a copy of the infringing code is liable. Copying from a CDROM to the hard drive is enough to be liable. If the infringing code was in RadHat's distribution then RedHat would also be liable.

          If a book is found to contain copyright violations, the purchaser of the book has no liability since they are not making a copy. Since playing a music CD requires copying the data into the CD player's memory their might be a liability there.

          If SCO copied code from Linux then whoever owns the copyright to

          • "Copying from a CDROM to the hard drive is enough to be liable."

            Where did you get this goofy idea from?

            First of all people can't be liable for past infringements. SCO has a duty to minimize damages by publicly stating what the infringement is, showing definitive proof that they own the copyright, and by giving the infringer a reasonable time to stop the infringement.

            Until SCO does all of the above nobody has anything to worry about.
            • Making a a copy is a violation if the copy is "fixed in tangible medium." Is a disk copy "fixed"? In MAI v. Peak [digital-law-online.com] the the Ninth Circuit held that copying to RAM is fixed enough:

              The law also supports the conclusion that Peak's loading of copyrighted software into RAM creates a "copy" of that software in violation of the Copyright Act.

              Clearly disk if RAM is a fixed media then disk is a fixed media.

              • " Making a a copy is a violation if the copy is "fixed in tangible medium." Is a disk copy "fixed"? In MAI v. Peak the the Ninth Circuit held that copying to RAM is fixed enough:"

                That's a complete misreading of the case. It has nothing to do with what is happening here. I also think that any half decent lawyer could tell the difference between copying some software and installing some software.

      • The company or person who put the [currently vapor] code there may be held liable. But not the end user who has been assured that the code is open source.

        If someone contributed a short story to the NYT, and the NYT times printed it, a reader of the paper would certainly not owe royalties if the copyright turned out to be bogus.

  • Stock (Score:4, Interesting)

    by savagedome ( 742194 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:50PM (#8034327)
    Even though SCO's stock has had one hell of a run, and (overwhelming) majority of us believe that their campaign is a fluff, nasdaq's risk analysis tools rates it almost alongside Redhat's stock.

    SCOX grade is at 369 and RHAT is at 356.
    For reference, Nasdaq is 86 and S&P500 is 52
    Higher the number, greater the risk.

    SCOX Risk [nasdaq.com]
    RHAT Risk [nasdaq.com]
    So, either these analysts are smoking crack or maybe I am just a dumbass when it comes to stocks. The later is a likely possibility!
    • Probably smoking crack. How many of these "analysts" know anything about linux, or the flavors, or really this SCO vs. the World thing? I would bet not too many.
    • Free advice, especially from salesmen, is worth every penny you paid for it.

      Enron and Webvan were once carried man "strong buy" rating.
    • I think it may be that the analyst's risk model doesn't take the lawsuit into account. It's going on historical sales, and basing it's guess on how other companies in the sector have performed. But what I don't get is the price. The p/e is 45, there's negative earnings forecast, and no fundamentals at all. The only speculation is the lawsuit. But if everybody bought the stock because of the lawsuit, haven't they been paying attention to the recent news? Why haven't more people sold - heck, the stock e
    • Weird tinfoil hat idea:
      DISCLAIMER: OK I'm no finance expert

      I bet RH is thinking the same thing you are after looking at the risks... which is *why* they're doing this. Sort of a "trigger point" in the "finance code" sets off a certain behavior designed for robustness.
      Just thinking... 'course, I could be a dumbass too.

    • Re:Stock (Score:1, Insightful)

      by gvibes ( 579654 )
      I could be wrong, but my guess is that this isn't an analyst's measure of risk, but rather a mathematical measure based on past volatility (related to Beta, for you finance people who know more than me out there).

  • RH has always been careful about IP (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ivanmarsh ( 634711 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:58PM (#8034392)
    That's why they removed fortune cookie and mp3 support from their distro.
  • What else do you want them to say? "We verfied our baseline code against the vapourware provided by the SCO, have decided that the whole OS is built upon a house of SCO cards, and we're discarding Red Hat entirely..." What's the next OS going to be called then? Yellow Touque?
  • You know what I think is actually going on with SCO? I think the lawfirms that work for some of the big companies that are being sued approached SCO in the first place. They offered SCO $50k to bring a suit against IBM, NOVELL, whoever, full well knowing that their client would require their services which could be billed into the millions.
  • in the event that an infringement issue is identified in Red Hat Enterprise Linux software code, Red Hat will replace the infringing code.

    The fact that code tested and running for months or years will be suddenly patched with new, rushed, quickly tested code somehow doesn't make me feel as good as this as it really should.

  • Umm didn't they already give? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Performer Guy ( 69820 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @02:31PM (#8034726)
    Red Hat contributed to the OSDL defense fund, so that means they're already putting their money where their mouth is and better yet doing it with everyone else in a way which covers us all, not just licensees of RH Enterprise. Anyone know what the fund is up to now?

  • Don't Understand Why Redhat Offers This (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Goo.cc ( 687626 ) * on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @02:41PM (#8034856)
    If Redhat sells me software that is found to infringe on SCO's copyrights, then that is a problem between Redhat and SCO. As the end user, I am not the infringer.

    You don't see Eolas suing Microsoft users over their patent lawsuit. You don't see CD buyers being sued for buying a rap CD that has been found to have used sampled music without permission.

    The "Open Source Assurance Program" is just PR.
    • If Redhat sells me software that is found to infringe on SCO's copyrights, then that is a problem between Redhat and SCO. As the end user, I am not the infringer.

      There are two things to consider here. One, under the GPL Red Hat has granted you rights beyond that one copy - there are also the rights to redistribution and creating derivative works. If Red Hat's licence is void, then so is yours. This means they'll replace any such code. You might not think of this as an end-user issue, but it is. If you don

  • I just don't get it..... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @02:42PM (#8034859)
    I've been following this SCO trash since day 1.

    I seriously do not understand... How, exactly, is it that SCO can charge a licensing fee for IP they have not proven belongs to them?

    Is there NO protection for consumers?

    This isn't just a case of SCO commiting liable, fraud, stock fraud, etc.... but this is also SCO blatently stealing from consumers.

    This means, one day, someone like Microsoft could just barge in and say Linux code had stolen MS code in it - force companies to pay under the threat of a massive legal dispute - something 99% of the companies in this country would be defenseless against and would be forced to pay - much like what SCO is doing right now.

    Where is our "Big Brother," you know - the one who will stick you in jail for 20 years for simply posessing the knowledge and the means to decrypt a satellite signal. (Ohh, how we love the DMCA.)

    At what point are we going to have another postal situation, where some geek is going to go insane from being such a minority that said geek(s) will simply wreck havoc on government systems and end up a martyr.

    God knows, I'm just about to the point where if an SCO rep knocks on my door - you can gurantee Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson will give them .357 reasons to GTFO and STFU real quick.

    This is unreal. I'm half American Indian - but I've never really felt like a minority because I suppose I 'appear' white. Now I really think I'm beginning to understand what Black people complain of. Look at what is happening to the OS community, we're the minority. WE'RE the Black people of technology.

    Something needs to change. We need some political action, the average person needs to be aware of what is happening with technology. Linux is without question the only real potential OS to replace MS Windows. MS knows that, SCO [Obviously] knows that, but the average person just has no clue.

    Being that Linux is unquestionably on the brink of becoming the replacement desktop - you would think this should be newsworthy and of great public interest.....

    *sigh*
  • If I'm right, this essentially has the effect of making RH the responsible party, therefore giving any of their customers who do not modify source at least a way to get their money back (sue RH, worst case) if they have to shell out any to SCO.

    Right?

  • Red Hat quickly gaining ground with MS tactics. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:06PM (#8035154) Homepage
    I've often said that companies like Microsoft have no obligation to support obsolete software like Win95 and 98, both of which are quite old. But RedHat has done basically the same thing, with much more recent software (and about one tenth of the blathering out cry from folks around here). And so, this statement bothers me: The warranty ensures, that in the event that an infringement issue is identified in Red Hat Enterprise Linux software code, Red Hat will replace the infringing code.

    So, even though a year or so ago, I went to Office Depot and bought RH8 Pro in a box, after only a year since this professionally packaged OS graced the shelves of a major retailer, RH not only does not support it anymore (where are the cries from ./ers that gave Microsoft all the heat with the 95 / 98 support death?), but we are not included in this warranty either

  • Spoke with a local purveyor of Linux systems recently. One thing that was pointed out on my questioning is that the only way SCO's tactics are affecting them is that they removed UnixWare from their list of options, and that some of the "fence sitters" (those who are just considering Linux or other *nix operating systems as an option over Microsoft) are a little hesitant.

    Be that as it may, this is evidently RH calling SCO's bluff and, for all intents, giving them the finger and goatse all at once.

  • At the very, very least (which this clearly is), this will make my COO feel better when this whole SCO idiocy crosses his radar screen and he asks about our recent move to RedHat. So it serves a very useful function for me, even if it is basically meaningless.
    • I would be curious to see what the exact wording of an indemnification is, versus that of what RedHat is actually saying in its coverage.

      What would also be interesting to see is how much of a Program (and by that term I refer to the paragraph immediately following Section 2 of the GPL) would have to be deemed "copyrighted" before RH decides to replace all the parts in the Program. (Compare two scenarios in which one versus three or four pieces of code is found to be "copyrighted".)
  • LINDON, Utah, Jan. 20 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), the owner of the UNIX(R) operating system and a leading provider of UNIX-based solutions, today filed suit against Novell (Nasdaq: NOVL - News) for its alleged bad faith effort to interfere with SCO's rights with respect to UNIX and UnixWare(R). Among the allegations in the suit:

    * Novell has improperly filed copyright registrations in the United
    States Copyright Office for UNIX technology covered by SC

  • It doesn't look limited to SCO (Score:3, Insightful)

    by phr1 ( 211689 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:15PM (#8035998)
    and therefore looks like it could be very difficult to honor. What happens if some major application turns out to infringe? E.g., suspend disbelief for a moment and imagine that GIMP's code turns out to be 97% ripped off from Photoshop. Red Hat is now going to rewrite it all?

    Also, what about patents? The "Assurance program" isn't limited to copyrights. If some program is found to infringe a patent, there may not be any way to reimplement the functionality without still infringing.

Slashdot Top Deals

Single tasking: Just Say No.

Close