Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business Government The Courts News

Indemnification Roundup 120

Posted by CowboyNeal from the watching-your-back dept.
Skapare writes "O'Reilly Network's LinuxDevCenter has a great article summarizing the indemnification possibilities for businesses considering switching to (or staying with) Linux. Author Tom Adelstein covers the business risk mitigation aspects of using Linux today, and details available indemnification offerings from Novell, HP, Red Hat, and OSRM. So why not print a copy and send it to your company CEO."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Indemnification Roundup More

Indemnification Roundup

Comments Filter:

  • Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by weave ( 48069 ) * on Friday July 02, 2004 @06:51AM (#9590700) Journal
    Indemnification is just a rouse to rise the total cost of ownership of Linux. Do I need to buy or worry about this kind of stuff when I buy Microsoft software? If not, why not? Is Microsoft not capable of accidently stealing someone else's work?

    Here we have an allegedly pro-Linux site promoting the same false statement. That if you run Linux, you have an increased legal risk and hence should shop around for a vendor that indemnifies its users or buy insurance to do so.

    If you're going to do an article like this, at least remove the distinction between FOSS (free and open source software) and proprietary software. For example, have a section that lists Microsoft, and then has a statement that says Microsoft does not indemnify their customers.

    All these risks people are throwing out about FOSS play right into the hands of proprietary software vendors trying to figure out ways to up the TCO of Linux. Shame on LinuxDevCenter for playing along.

    • It's just human nature, everyone wants to make money out of something.

      In the case of FOSS, it's usually support, and if it's not support, it'll be insurance. And if it's not insurance, it'll be protection money.

      • Barriers To Entry (Score:5, Insightful)

        by persaud ( 304710 ) on Friday July 02, 2004 @07:28AM (#9590861)
        Once a business demonstrates sufficient long-term viability, there is inevitable pressure to consolidate and "standardize" the market by the removal of small competitors.

        The most politically attractive tool for removing small vendors from a market is overwhelming economic force (free as in beer). Current case in point, Gmail will destroy small ISPs by teaching users to demand hundreds of megabytes of email storage. Yahoo & Hotmail have already responded.

        Indemnification will do the same for Linux distributions. You may be able to roll your own distro, but it will be increasingly difficult to distribute it without legal exposure (not only to the publisher, but the distribution channel, e.g. SourceForge/OSDN).

        After economic consolidation comes political consolidation (regulation). Sender-pays email, state-issued ID for publication, bank-issued ID for consumption, firewall liability insurance in exchange for permission to face the public network, VOIP-driven consolidate of "offline" and "online" IDs -- and just when you're about to go insane with boundary barriers: premium green-light services that guarantee swift passage to those who can afford it.

        Creative anarchy will remain possible within organized economic pools that can negotiate regulatory barriers to entry and evolution.

    • I agree. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Why is it even necessary to get this kind of insurance, it would be the company selling the software to me that is liable, not myself unless I decide to redistribute it, and even then...

      • Re:I agree. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by weave ( 48069 ) * on Friday July 02, 2004 @07:03AM (#9590746) Journal
        Why is it even necessary to get this kind of insurance, it would be the company selling the software to me that is liable, not myself unless I decide to redistribute it, and even then...

        Well, anyone can sue anyone for any reason, so there are risks for just existing. Any larger company has a legal department and a legal budget as it is.

        My point is, there's nothing to stop some small software maker in Australia from claiming that a technology inside Microsoft SQL server violates their patent or copyright and threaten to sue end users of SQL server (which I seem to recall actually did happen).

        Risks are everywhere. Please stop supporting the myth that using Linux is extra risky.

        • From the article:
          "Past infringement cases have focused on software makers rather than end users. For example, Microsoft has encountered many infringement cases from companies like Eolas, Stac, Burst, Netscape, Sun, and InterTrust. None of the Microsoft cases have fallen over to consumers."

          While there is nothing to stop anyone from filing a claim against anyone else, one company filing a claim against the end users of a different company has NEVER happened before.

          The threats can be (and have been) made, bu
        • I don't see how it would be possible to sue end users of closed source software. If there were infringing code in Linux, it could at least be argued that the users had access to the source and could have found the code. Whether they are obligated to do so is a different matter. But with Microsoft products, I have no way of knowing what code was used, even if I want to find out. The user has no obligation and no ability to police Microsoft's use of code, so how could someone file a lawsuit in a case like thi

    • Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? (Score:5, Informative)

      by aixou ( 756713 ) on Friday July 02, 2004 @07:00AM (#9590729)
      I suppose it's somewhat analagous to volcano insurance. Everything's cool until your house is covered in soot.

      Do I need to buy or worry about this kind of stuff when I buy Microsoft software?

      No, but then Microsoft software is all done in house. 95% (give or take) of software included in a Red Hat distribution was not created by Red Hat, so they don't have the same level of accountability as Microsoft. With an indemnification plan, they are taking on the accountability of the linux kernel writers, which might give a justified peace of mind to any potential customer.

      • Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by weave ( 48069 ) * on Friday July 02, 2004 @07:06AM (#9590762) Journal
        No?

        Does Microsoft not hire programmers that used to work at other firms, for example? Couldn't they "accidently" contribute code from a former employer's products? Are you willing to indemnify all users of Microsoft that they are not under any legal risk for using Microsoft software if you are so sure?

        • It comes back to accountability, which is a problem in the world of OSS. If there is tainted code in the Windows source that spurs a lawsuit, you can bet that this lawsuit will be on Microsoft's hands, not on users of its software.

          In some sense, it's similar to the Napster (the Napster of yesteryear, not the name-whoring music store) vs. Kazaa from the RIAA's perspective. Microsoft is like Napster in that there is a central place of accountability, so the RIAA can just go there (in this case, Napster's s
          • I could spin that and say since Microsoft code is not open, then it's impossible for independent groups to audit and confirm that no infringing code is in there.

            In legal terms, never assume a company will come to bat for you, or that an entity suing will pick Microsoft and not you -- especially if you look like an easier target for a win that will set some precedence for them.

            • In legal terms, never assume a company will come to bat for you, or that an entity suing will pick Microsoft and not you -- especially if you look like an easier target for a win that will set some precedence for them.

              And what type of precedent do you think that would set? One that discourages using Microsoft products? Microsoft is in the business of making money. If Microsoft's customers were being sued left and right you can sure as hell bet that they wouldn't just sit there with their thumbs in thei
              • You're right, Microsoft wouldn't just sit there. And neither is IBM or Redhat or Novell (who are also in the business to make money). They are defending and counter-suing. Justice takes time, but FUD is instant.

                SCO's plan was to get IBM to buy them out. Even the lawyer's payment terms were geared towards that. You don't see a possibility that a Microsoft customer might get sued for some bogus copyright claim with an eye towards Microsoft buying them out?

                I don't see any big differences here.

                • Microsoft did just sit there once upon a time. I don't remember the details, the name of the product or company, but a year or two ago, some company sued Microsoft and won because Microsoft had appropriated their code in some manner. I think Microsoft had bought non-transferable rights to the output of the program, and this company insisted that Microsoft customers had to purchase their own licenses to use the output of the program, whereas Microsoft had resold it as if the rights transferred. Microsoft
            • ... in any of the Microsoft anti trust cases? I really don't know, but it sure would be interesting if there was any way to force an audit of their code looking for "stolen" code. Someone who has looked at it under an NDA might have noticed it, but be reluctant to whistleblow on the subject being afraid of getting sued from microsoft for violating the NDA, and having no one to step in and help them with the legal fees. Just a maybe there because I don't know, but I am suspicious of them and their relationsh
        • You mean like the developers from Digital did when they left DEC and started the work on Windows NT.

          Why do you think NT and beta versions of Win2k worked on the Alpha - but got canned when Compaq bought Digital out.

      • Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        So if the next SCO comes out screaming that windows has their stolen code and they want to alsu try and extort... oh wait fine all users $500.00 per CPU then everything is fine because it's microsoft and they will be a nice benelovent company and protect us?

        Waht exactly are you smoking this morning? as not even crack can make a person that wacked out.

        it applies to microsoft and ALL microsoft products exactly the same UNTIL microsoft comes out and says, "we will take the fall for YOU no matter what."... an

    • Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by clymere ( 605769 ) on Friday July 02, 2004 @07:14AM (#9590789) Homepage
      The difference is that Microsoft is one of the largest corporations in the world. They do in fact use other people's code on a regular basis...they outright steal things, knowingly.

      The difference here is that Microsoft has the legal muscle to get virtually anyone to back down from them...even if MS was actually in the wrong.

      You can't afford to hire MS's lawyers if SCO decides to sue you next...thats what you would want indemnification for.

      Frankly, I am surprised that anyone is still discussing this as if its really a viable option anyways. SCO's suits are all but over, paying indemnication fees to anyone at this point is a waste of money, no matter who you are.
      • "They do in fact use other people's code on a regular basis...they outright steal things, knowingly."

        That's a pretty bold and gutsy statement: can you back that up with evidence?
        • In one case it was certain [daemonnews.org]: the ftp client (called FTP.EXE) contains the following string:
          $ strings /C:/FTP.EXE | grep Calif
          @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
        • From the Wikipedia entry on Microsoft(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft) :

          Stac Electronics, which accused Microsoft of stealing its data compression code and using it in MS-DOS 6 [4]

          Sendo, which accused Microsoft of terminating their partnership so it could steal Sendo's technology to use in Windows Smartphone 2002 [5]

          Apple Computer, which accused Microsoft of stealing QuickTime code and using it in Windows Media Player


          This was just a quick google too. There was once a documentary on TV a
      • Ok, for the sake of being the devil's advocate, let's say that Longhorn comes out, and SmallSoftwareCorp. Inc. thinks that some bit of software looks just like their UberWidget 1.0 only it's been rebranded as MSWidget 1.0. So they do a little digging and find a string that says "Copyright SmallSoftwareCorp. Inc.". They have MS dead to rights and decide that they want $1000 for each misappropriated copy of their software, which by now is on ten million machines world wide. Are you certain that MS will go

    • Microsoft end users have been sued (Score:5, Informative)

      by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Friday July 02, 2004 @07:18AM (#9590812)
      Nobody has ever been sued for just using Linux. However, end-users of a msft product (SQL server) have been sued over a patent violation.

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/20/sql_serv er _developers_face_huge/

      From the evidence that exists so far, it is clear that msft end-users are the ones more likely to be sued.

      Of course the most likely to be sued of all, are end-users of scox proprietary products. For the simple reason that scox has made it a normal business practice to sue anybody who has any sort of contract with scox. So far that includes: ibm, chrysler, autozone, and novell.

      What was it scox spokesman blake stowell said? "Lawsuits are what you use against people you have a contract with."

      • THANK YOU walterbyrd. I remembered that case but couldn't find mention of it.

        Here's a clickable link [theregister.co.uk] to that article.

      • software is the must utterly bizarre legal property there is: just about all the advantages go to the vendor, and all the problems go to the customer. The IP owners get all the advantages of govt enforced artificial scarcity and ease of replication (charging $500 for a CD and a manual) but have no liability for damage caused by their property (a bug in the software wipes out a disk of important business data). If the owner of a swimming pool doesn't put a fence around it or take step to secure the water haz

    • Definitely Not. (Score:5, Informative)

      by gillbates ( 106458 ) on Friday July 02, 2004 @08:16AM (#9591113) Homepage Journal

      For your consideration:

      • Microsoft's customers were sued by Timeline when Microsoft distributed code with SQL server that Timeline had only license to Microsoft for internal use.
      • I have never heard of a Linux vendor suing their customers. Yet fairly recently, Microsoft sued the LA school district for about $400,000. They sued a school .... Think about that one for a while.
      • Microsoft was convicted of abusing their monopoly position to hurt competitors. Misgivings about code written by volunteers are understandable, but it would be downright foolish to eschew code written by someone with altruistic motives in favor of code written by a convicted felon.
      • The idea that a convicted felon's code - code which is intentionally kept secret - is somehow less likely to infringe on IP rights is laughable, at best.
      • Furthermore, the fact that the source is closed means a company cannot even begin to evaluate the risk of infringement. One simply cannot determine how much or from whom Microsoft has stolen code - or if they've stolen any at all.

      One could make some very good objections to using Linux, but liability is not one of them. If anything, the fact that the source code is freely available means that absent frivolous plaintiffs (*cough* SCO *cough*) there is a very small risk of being sued. Unlike the proprietary, closed source model, cases of actual infringement can be mitigated by the end user. If I was sued for IP infringement and didn't have the source code, my only option (assuming that infringement really took place) is to pay royalties and licensing fees. But if I do have the source code, I can simply remove the infringing material, substantially reducing the damages that a plaintiff could collect.

      And for all you Microsoft-vs-Linux trolls, save it. Microsoft and Linux are just good examples of the relative strengths and weaknesses of open versus closed source. The argument would apply equally well to Adobe Photoshop vs. Gimp or Oracle vs Postgresql, etc...

      • You can't win the Linux/Windows battle on ideology. Even talking about how software was written brings your argument to a grinding halt. People don't buy software because it was made by someone with "altruistic motives". They buy software because it does what they want it to do. You can't expect people to make their computers do less because it's more ideologically sound. We're talking business :-P

        Saying there's no way to determine what's in a closed source project is ridiculous. It's not as if the d

        • Well, yes, functionality wins hands down. There's little point in installing software you can't really use.

          But the whole security through "code auditing" thing is a farce. What does auditing matter when the company itself is willing to steal the code of others and infringe patents at will?

          The Timeline case is a perfect example. Timeline gave Microsoft their code, and someone at Microsoft decided to ship it with SQL server. It's not as if it was an accident (and if it was, there goes your auditing

        • Just once I'd like to see Open Source apps that didn't pretend to be a cheap knock-off of someone else's successful product.

          Why is it that FS developers insist on following Microsoft's lead? .NET is a stupid idea, and .Mono even worse - why would you build a virtual machine if it would never be ported to other platforms, and why spend effort optimizing said machine when modern compilers can already generate much faster code?

          Oh, I know - the challenge. Rather than writing code which actually solves p

          • Why don't you name something truly innovative that Microsoft has developed all on their own? I mean truly distinctive, different, revolutionary. Not these incremental "improvments" of .NOT and ActiveX and Boband papers flying from a folder into a trash can while delete works its magic.

            Betcha can't do it. Not even one.
    • In case you have never read your license agreement (MS and others), YOU indemnify THEM. What a crock! Can you imagine one of us broke down geeks providing legal protection for companies like MS? Don't think so.
      I am close to having a "ceremonial burning" of all my computers, software and docs...then go fishing for the next few years until I expire.
      If enough of us refuse to buy software under these "licenses", i.e., you get between them and that cash register, they'll drop that shxx in a heartbeat. But not un

  • All of this concern.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cbreaker ( 561297 ) on Friday July 02, 2004 @06:55AM (#9590715) Journal
    For something that has yet to be proven, and all signs point to the SCO case as being a farse.

    These companies backing their products with legal aid are simply doing it as a marketing ploy. RedHat, HP, Novell.. they know there's nothing to worry about, that's why they've all been so eager to extend these "services."

    I can't wait until the whole SCO case is just over. We all here know that SCO will lose.
    • We all here know that SCO will lose.

      Will the Judge rule that way though. The masses were all sure OJ would be convicted as well.

      • Re:All of this concern.. (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Will the Judge rule that way though. The masses were all sure OJ would be convicted as well.

        OJ was tried by a jury, and juries are not noted for their in-depth knowledge of the law. So long as SCO vs IBM stays in front of competent legal minds, I have much less worry that the wrong verdict will be reached.
      • Remember, SCO v IBM a particularly tenuous case. They are arguing that existing code that IBM ported to AIX automatically became derivative of SVD, so when IBM ported code with a similar function to Linux they were breaking their SVD contract. I'm talking about JFS here, but the same ridiculous scenario applies to other things SCO is making a big deal out of.

        There is no way that SCO can prevail. Their main argument with DaimlerChrysler is about whether a list of Unix registered CPUs constitutes a list when
      • True, but in addition to the prosecution errors, all the OJ attorneys had to do was brainwash a jury and he was free. SCO does not have this luxury because even if they manage to do this, the verdict would not stand up to appeals. So their chance of success, even if they have a case, is miniscule. And even if they win, all infringing code would be removed from Linux and they would not have their much hyped revenue stream.
      • To get away with murder you have to be rich and famous. SCO is only rich, and soon they won't even have that going for them. No one likes Mcbride, this why he'll loose regardless of all else. OJ won his freedom mainly because of the football fans in the jury.
        • And it's so true that nobody likes the man. I mean, the way he's conducted business his whole career is about making a quick buck with minimal effort, pushing the legal system to it's limits.

          The man is a slime-ball.

    • Definitely a farse, for sure. But to business executives, it is also a legal reality that cannot be ignored. And the fear is not that SCO might ever win anything, but that they might be expected to have to defend against such an attempt. And the counter-suit to recover legal defense costs might well get nothing because of the financial problems at SCO. So it isn't a matter of knowing that SCO will lose. The risk is getting struck by its dying attacks.

    • These companies backing their products with legal aid are simply doing it as a marketing ploy. RedHat, HP, Novell.. they know there's nothing to worry about, that's why they've all been so eager to extend these "services."

      To my mind, anyway, there's a huge distinction between Red Hat and Novell saying, "You have nothing to worry about over buying our product -- we guarantee it!" and Perens & Groklaw Insurance saying, "If you buy our 'insurance', we'll (sort of) protect you from getting sued over Red Ha

  • Bad opening statement... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Beolach ( 518512 ) <beolach@juMONETno.com minus painter> on Friday July 02, 2004 @06:59AM (#9590724) Homepage Journal
    I don't like how the article starts.
    Little doubt exists; a legal cloud hangs over Linux from infringement claims of the SCO Group, Inc. In spite of that cloud, Linux server sales grew 56.9 percent in the first quarter of the year. Linux sales in 2004 follows six consecutive quarters of double-digit growth for the free operating system during unprecedented legal attacks from SCO over the same period.
    Just that first statement, "Little doubt exists; a legal cloud hangs over Linux" annoys me. I can't really argue against it (yes, SCO did start a big stink), but I for one don't think of it as much of a 'cloud over Linux'. It really doesn't take much research to see that SCO's claim's are unlikely to hold up in court. And I think sales growth indicates I'm not alone in not being afraid of SCO's litigation, so where's the cloud? This almost seems like a scare tactic, not to make you stay away from Linux, but to buy a indemnification package to protect yourself. I don't buy it.

    • How many of you are reading this now, as paid daytime employees who write F/OSS software in the evenings, not aware of the Intellectual Property clauses in your employment contract, nor of the legal cases over direct or indirect (subconscious) copying of software - meaning that your day work could spill over into your evening work, meaning that you employer may actually have grounds to take you on in a law suit some day?

      I'm not sure if there is a could hanging over F/OSS, but there certainly seem to risks
      • That's different. These indemnification packages protect from legal action against you for using or purchasing Linux, they do not protect you from legal action against you for breaking a contract with your employer. That's your own stupid fault for signing without reading. And IANAL, but I really don't think an employer who had an employee contracted not to produce work for anyone other than the employer would be able to sue anyone besides the employee who broke contract. This is one of the most ridicu
        • "That's different."

          Of course it's different, but it's a legitimate issue to raise now that we're talking about F/OSS and indemnification.

          "And IANAL, but I really don't think an employer who had an employee contracted not to produce work for anyone other than the employer would be able to sue anyone besides the employee who broke contract."

          It's clear that your not a lawyer, because the circumstances are blindingly obvious: employee "moonlights", then employer claims that employee contributed unauthorised
          • This type of thing can get really confusing. Say my next door neighbor works in an autoshop, and is under contract not to compete with his employer... so if I ask him to help me fix something on my car, is he commiting a crime? Am I? What if he does just as a favor for me (no money changes hands), would that be more/less/the same of a crime? What if the work he did for me was not work that the autoshop he works for normally does? If he stopped on the freeway and helped an old lady change a tire, is he n
            • "This type of thing can get really confusing."

              Of course, but lawyers understand them just as well as developers understand multiple-inheritance, polymorphism and dynamic dispatch.

              "Say my next door neighbor works in an autoshop, and is under contract not to compete with his employer... so if I ask him to help me fix something on my car, is he commiting a crime?"

              Possibly, but it depends on a number of factors. Did he just fix your car? Or does it fix other peoples cars as well? Does he use tools from the w
    • Is there a way to obtain one of the rapid growth clouds for my own game development biz...
    • It does seem like a legitimate risk that, if you've ever done business with SCO, or maybe even if not, and you're using Linux, SCO might come after you. Saying that Linux is legally sound is like saying that you don't owe any muggers any money. It's true, but that doesn't really matter. By the time you actually get to prove your case, you'll have had to spend a significant amount of time in court, and SCO will probably go bankrupt and be unable to pay your legal bills by the time you win.
  • Looking for Indemnification While Linux Sales Double
    by Tom Adelstein
    06/28/2004

    Little doubt exists; a legal cloud hangs over Linux from infringement claims of the SCO Group, Inc. In spite of that cloud, Linux server sales grew 56.9 percent in the first quarter of the year. Linux sales in 2004 follows six consecutive quarters of double-digit growth for the free operating system during unprecedented legal attacks from SCO over the same period.

    Advertisement
    Linux success helped push all server growth to 7.3 pe

  • hmm.. (Score:2, Informative)

    by dementedWabbit ( 675528 )
    actually, I seem to remember a stink over MS SQL Server, as they bought a limited-use licence for software used to make SQL Server work. This licence [IIRC] makes it illegal to modify SQL Server, or to use it in different environments. Redhat offering services to indemnify buyers against this is actually helping to get those that would hesitate - and it's actually still far more economical that MS (actually, if you count future support and forced upgrades from MS, Linux distro's could charge $1000 per sea
    • I'm sorry, but what the hell are you babbling about?

      Are you babbling about running SQL Server on Linux, and then making up numbers for costs?

      I don't know what you're referring to by seats... if you're talking about SQL Server, do you mean server OS installs? If you're talking about CALs, then you have to pay per "user" on the server side. If you're talking about OS licensing on the server, if you're going to run RHEL ES, then it'll cost you more than a grand.

      Forced upgrades? Do commercial Linux vendor
  • The risk of not using Linux or other GPL licensed software is. Some day some Litigious Bastards turn around and sue you even though you have not had their software on a machine in over 7 years.

  • Just proving them right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rat Tank ( 612088 ) on Friday July 02, 2004 @07:18AM (#9590808)
    I wouldn't be so quick to indemnify myself; this just 'shows' SCO and their paid shills that they're right.
    "Look, these Linux users are getting indemnification ... they obviously know they've stolen our code for communist activities!"

  • stuff for fools to buy. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Friday July 02, 2004 @07:18AM (#9590810) Homepage
    anyone that buy's into this is a complete fool. there is NO guarentee that you are protected in any way. I dont care what any of these companies say, they will not pay all your legal fees to protect yourself in court if another asswad company or person comes out of the woodwork and tries to claim that anyone using XYZ owes them $$$.

    it's a bunch of empty and useless words that the companies are throwing out there. if you read it very closely I am betting that there are clauses and loopholes that relieve them of their "protection" in many ways.

    if it makes a PHB heppy and shut's him up, then it may have value in that way. but it has ZERO value in any courtroom or for any protection for a company.

    anyone with even a slight legal background can see this.
    • if you read it very closely I am betting that there are clauses and loopholes that relieve them of their "protection" in many ways.
      ...
      but it has ZERO value in any courtroom or for any protection for a company.
      So you haven't read it, but you can state that it has ZERO value?

      anyone with even a slight legal background can see this.

      I am sure that any slight legal background that you have comes from being prosecuted. You have zero knowledge of contract law.

      Presumptuous of me to say?
      Yeah, I thou

  • Imdemification for only $100 (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 02, 2004 @07:20AM (#9590818)
    These guys are doing imdemification for $100 penguin dollars [wikipedia.org]

  • Why worry? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Why worry about SCO's lawuit of GNU/LINUX?

    If I want to use an Open Source OS that had settled the UNIX IP matter long ago, I pick FreeBSD.

    If for some reason I want the GNU tollset I could pick GNU/FreeBSD.

    Too bad Tom Adelstein couldn't be bothered to point out how the SCO claims of UNIX IP vs Open Source OS was solved years ago by the BSDi crew.

    • You and I, and I am sure Tom Adelstein, all know that SCO's case is meritless. But the real problem is that some companies still get sued by a dying company. Executives don't want their company to have to be the one that has to pay a lawyer to bring the BSDi facts into a courtroom. Indemnification will help for those companies where the decision to go with Linux is being held back due to the legal risk (not of losing, but of having to defend).

  • This isn't helping (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TexasDex ( 709519 ) on Friday July 02, 2004 @07:22AM (#9590828) Homepage
    The idea of indemnification just puts more emphasis on the claims of SCO and any other company who might feel like claiming they've been wronged by Open Source. What we really need to do is prove SCO wrong, and this will likely fade into the woodwork.

    I know, I know. It's awfully hard to prove them wrong when they won't say exactly what they claim. So sue me. err, no... Sue them! That's what IBM, RedHat, and a few others are doing right now.

  • CEO (Score:5, Informative)

    by Mr_Silver ( 213637 ) on Friday July 02, 2004 @07:44AM (#9590931)
    So why not print a copy and send it to your company CEO

    Unless you're in a very small company, the CTO would be a better bet.

    If you're in a really big company, then the chances are it should be going to the Director of IT.

    Don't immediately shoot yourself in the foot by annoying people whose job is not to consider/deal with these issues.

    • While the CTO would be the person to move forward on decisions like using Linux (and a good CTO would well understand the lack of merit in SCO's case), a CEO might well be involved in addressing the legal issue. If anything, the CTO should be the one doing the printing of it and putting it on the CEO's desk.

      If you're not the company CTO or Director of IT, it probably is best to pass it up the pecking order. But it should be intended for the CEO ... or maybe even the CFO ... as that is where legal risks c

  • "...details available indemnification offerings from Novell, HP, Red Hat, and OSRM. So why not print a copy and send it to your company CEO."

    the simple fact that you need an indemnification agreement when buying linux is enough for your email too go smell the trash-bin.
    a responsible CEO cannot act in a "so, sue me" manner!

    and btw stop bashing SCO, its not their fault .. the real culprit is the american justice system that allows them to do what they do!

  • The costs of linux (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Ignignot ( 782335 )
    With all the costs of linux (accountability, support services, re-writing inhouse software, re-training IT), I think that most businesses will stick with MS and license their software. This recurring cost may be more than Linux's recurring cost, but the barrier for exit from MS's world is high. However, I do think that once MS releases a new OS and eventually businesses feel pressure to switch to it, many will instead switch to Linux. The cost of switching to Linux, while higher than the cost of supporti
  • This is huge in my business where the CEO is gunshy from a lawsuit 7 years ago. (yeah, I know...therapy) We recently turned down a completely free, open-source component for a relatively expensive one that did less for what? Indemnification. Our legal aid couldn't guarantee us that we wouldn't get sued.

    It's a problem. Businesses that use 3rd party products need those products to perform WITHOUT giving them the added legal expense. I think your ROI really drops when it includes a few suits. Small businesses, in specific, aren't about to take that chance. That being said, they're less likely to be targeted, but often the chance isn't worth it.

    They want someone to point a finger at if something goes wrong...the software breaks, it destroys data, or they get sued for infringement in order to recoup lost money. With open-source, you have no one to point at. (usually)
  • I don't quite understand the author's conclusion that Novell offers the best protection.

    Novell offers legal protection, but Red Hat is basically offering the ability to carry on operations without worrying about the lawsuit. I understand that legal liability is important, but the real threat is not having a solution that you are legally able to use. To me, this reduces the real uncertainty in the situation. Novell's users might not have to worry about the legal fees, but what do they do with their business

  • This is a side issue but might be tangentially relevant to the whole discussion of software patents and copyrights and various code.

    Who OWNS tabbed browsing? Is there a patent on it yet? Compared to a lot of the other ridiculously silly patents out there in IP land,and all these disputes, it seems to be a major big one. It is so useful any innovation (imo) that most people who use it will hardly ever be satisfied again with any non tabbed enabled browser.
  • It is such a great con. Lawyer to small firm, "The company you bought from did something wrong so we are going to sue you. If there was a chance we would loose they would indemnify you so you better settle!"
    Typical small company, "Oh dear we had batter settle we can not afford to loose a suit like that!"
    Smart company, "If the comapny we bought this from did wrong why are you not sueing them? Could it be that you are going after those that are too weak to fight you and betting they will just cave in?"

    What a
  • that I will be sending this to my CIO! They don't even know who the CEO of SCO is! Who is this Daryl Mcbride they speak of. I thought DARL Mcbride was the CEO of SCO, not this DarYl. I was getting ready to send that link to my CIO too..
  • If you are afraid that SCO might win the case (ok, a very stupid assumption, but let's say you are), why not buy a few SCO stocks? They currently sell somewhere around USD 5, but if SCO wins, they would at least be rise to USD 200; using this money, you can easily buy a SCO IP license for your servers. If SCO loses its cases, which is the most likely outcome, you will probably lose the money invested - but that's not a difference to any other insurance.
  • So why not print a copy and send it to your company CEO

    Why on earth would I do that? The first thing (s)he'll ask is
    "So there's truth behind all this SCO stuff?" At which point I'll say
    "Er, well no, it's all a buncha hooey"
    "So why are you showing me this?"
    "Err.. uhhh"

    I'm aware of the litigious world we live in, but even acknowledging that there's a possibility all this patent/SCO crap is right plays into their hands.

    SCO is dying, and with it (I can hope) the threat of patent infringement lawsuits, at le

  • The New York Times has announced a new idemification program. For only $100 extra over the cost of the paper, you are protected when reading the Times against any legal liability in cases that one or more of the articles is plagurized. Feel safer when reading the Times! Now your legal department can feel safe letting a copy be left in the break room at work! All for $100 dollars. PS: better stop reading those cheapo little papers who can't afford this idemification program, you could be sued!
  • The success of indemnification means that the FUD terrorists have already won...

  • Simple. (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Run BSD.
  • So why not print a copy and send it to your company CEO.

    Because she's functionally illiterate?

  • If those insurers cover the kernel (or any other ubiquitous component) then they're a joke, IMHO.

    Let's say Linus blunders and commits in something that really violates a patent. Now when the patent holder sues everybody... it's like if all the cars crashed in an instant for a car insurer. The insurance company would go broke in a second.

    Am i missing something?

  • Microsoft, and Microsoft alone (supposedly) indemnifies their software. even if they try to disclaim the hell out of it, they'll still foot the legal bill even if the court doesn't buy it.

    Is it me, or does having all these companies offering indemnification services for (roughly) the same product look like a market being re-opened up to competition again? Even when it comes to legal services for something you probably don't need, you STILL have more choices with Linux than with Windows.
  • OK maybe I'm interpreting this all wrong because I just woke up and am not thinking coherently, if thats the case please correct me but I read this line:

    SCO plans to continue to threaten people who know very little about the state of its information technology shops.

    First thing I think this means is that SCO is threatening companies that are not well informed about the history of Unix and Linux. And if what the experts of Unix and Linux are saying SCO is one of those companies that doesn't fully unders

  • SCOX has been trading around $5 ± 0.50 for about a month, with low trading volume. Below $5, you can't short a NASDAQ stock, so the bears have dropped out of the market. (Two German exchanges with different short-selling rules recently listed SCOX, to get around the NASDAQ rule. This came up in the SCO conference call, and Darl was annoyed about it.)

    Last Wednesday, around 11 am, SCOX suddenly went up to $6.25, in heavy trading. [yahoo.com] Somebody made that happen. It wasn't a random event. But whomever d

  • Do Microsoft, Oracle, and so on indemnify you?
  • SCO's beef is technically with the Linux kernel 2.4 and newer. Solution: Dust off an old distro with Kernel 2.2 and run that.

    The whole deal revolves around SCO's allegations that IBM borrowed copyrighted Unix code and incorporated it into Linux to improve Unix program compatibility, thus hurting SCO's business. SCO would be severely impacted if the Unix-alike, Linux, were now Just-Like Unix, and people no longer needed to pay for a genuine Unix solution - they could get it for free, or perhaps with some

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close