Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Indemnity Protection for Linux?

Posted by Cliff on from the protection-from-pointed-fingers dept.

spookymonster asks: "I'm a mainframe sysadmin for a Fortune 50 company. I'm also a Linux hobbyist. About 18 months ago, my request for a proof-of-concept z/Series testbed was granted, and the results have been encouraging. Despite this, senior management keeps saying that Linux isn't ready for prime time. Today, I was finally able to corner one of them and ask him what exactly his issue was with Linux. His answer: Indemnity. All our other software vendors provide protection against someone suing us for using their product. Who protects us if a third party sues us, claiming Linux infringes on their copyrights? Sadly, I was at a loss for words. I've done some digging on Google, but haven't really found anything on the subject. With the SCO/IBM lawsuit heavy in the headlines of late, I figured I'd turn to the Slashdot community for answers. How do I respond to questions about Linux and indemnification protection?"

4 of 61 comments (clear)

  1. Good question, but I want to extend it by mirabilos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's really a good question, and I have no answer
    for you, I'm sorry.
    But I want to extend the question on BSD Unix, i.e.
    OpenBSD, NetBSD and FreeBSD.

    Also I want to remind you that /. is US-centric, but
    the world is more than USA. I'm, for example,
    under European law.

    --
    My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And /. still does not get UTF-8 right in 2012. Wow.)
  2. Simple by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Buy it from a vendor.

    Perhaps none of them will offer the level of indemnity that you require, but if you ask enough of them, it may convince one of them that this might be a viable business model, and start offering it in the future. Essentially you'll be paying for insurance rather than software, so this would be an interesting new way for making money from open source.

  3. MSFT doesn't provide it either... by sprzepiora · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just look at the the MSSQL ruling posted to slashdot not to long ago. MS left some of their customers out to dry to pay royalty fees to a third party because MS's license didn't allow customers to use it.

    --
    Stupid things kids do.
  4. Sounds like management-speak by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Few people, even business directors, have the legal knowledge to understand licensing issues. It sounds like this guy is just trying to throw out legal jargon so that you cannot argue the points technically. It is an avoidance technique.