RedHat Starts "Open Source Now" Fund

celston23 writes "According to this article (near bottom), RedHat is intending to use their Open Source Now Fund to support open-source (GPL) developers who are sued for copyright infringement. Might be used during the SCO legal battle."

Comments

Has been mentioned before

[ldm]

This is awfully familiar, don't you think? (again, near the bottom)

Re:Forgive my possible naievity

[MAXOMENOS]

If there has been no infringement then logically there would be no need for this fund as, again logically, it could be demonstrated in every court that Linux doesn't contain any SCO material.

This is a non-sequitur. The simple fact is that it is going to cost money -- a lot of money -- in order to prove that Linux doesn't contain any SCO material. Lawyers need to be paid, witnesses need to be briefed, exhibits need to be made, etc. All that takes cash, regardless of the merits of the case.

This isn't news

[pjack76]

This isn't news. There's no new info in the eetimes article, and that page at RedHat never contained information about the fund itself. The "Open Source Now" page is just an advocacy group apparently devoted to spotting laws that would prevent adoption of open source in government etc.

This seems different (though related) to the "Open Source Now Fund", which would specifically target legal threats against Linux and related things, like the FSF does for GNU.

I haven't been able to find any info on how to contribute to the fund. I spoke with many Red Hat people at Linux World about it, and they didn't know. I sent an email to opensourcenow@redhat.com, and they never replied. I've also been talking with Red Hat salesmen for the past week or two trying to put together a proposal, and they don't know either.

What's the hold up Red Hat? TAKE MY MONEY DAMMIT.

Re:Forgive my possible naievity

[DickBreath]

Yeah. What if?

If there is SCO code improperly copied by IBM into Linux, then...

• IBM will have to pay for SCO's damages. (SCO has never sold an "enterprise" version of Unix. SO what are SCO's damages?)
• SCO will have to claim that they did not know what they were distributing for eight years under the GPL. (Counteragrument is that they either knew or should have known)
• SCO can NOT claim damages from end users. Liability does not attach to end users.
• SCO could try to claim damages from distributers, such as Red Hat. But SCO's copyright registration has occured way too late to claim anything but actual damages. Red Hat is not guilty of willful infringement. In fact Red Hat has tried to cure the infringement by finding out exactly what is infringing so that they can remove it.
• There are no trade secrets at issue.
• There are no patents at issue.
• There are no trademarks at issue.
• There is possibly a copyright issue.
• You cannot claim damages when you help create the damage: still offer Linux source for downloads.
• You cannot claim damages when you help create the damage: not allow anyone to cure the infringement.

So just what would happen? IBM might have to cure the infringement and pay whatever damages that SCO can proove. Even in the worst possible outcome, this will be a bump in the road for Linux. In fact, the FUD is doing much more damage than a successful SCO outcome could possibly do.

Re:Unfortunate but needed

[Ian Wolf]

Sorry, having worked as a paralegal for three years, "An understanding of the law, a stack of envelopes, and occasionally plane fare are more than enough" is rarely enough.

As a defendant you *MUST* pay the costs of a stenographer for any depositions and you can rarely get a witness in without them being properly deposed. Also, expert witnesses are rarely free. You normally have to pay for those. Then there is the cost of multiple plane tickets, if the trial is out of your area. Plus board, meals, etc. Then there are the amount of money you spend at Kinko's. Its downright amazing how many hundreds or thousands of dollars you can spend just on making copies of briefs, depositions, and interrogatories which you MUST pay yourself. There are many hidden costs involved in even a minor case.

The delays, the frivilous filings, the mountains of paperwork, hyperbole, press leaks, etc. That is what you are actually paying a lawyer for these days.

That's like saying I only pay my sysadmin to backup some files, reset my password, post on slashdot, and forget to apply patches. hmmm... Then again, I guess some places do pay their sysadmins to do just that.