Slashdot Mirror
HP Offers Linux Purchasers Indemnification
PnViking writes points out this story in the Detroit News, writing "HP is now covering any claims from SCO if you bought Linux and have a support contract from them: '"We will provide full indemnity across the entire suite for any SCO-related action," said Martin Fink, HP's vice president of Linux. "If (customers) were to get sued by SCO, we would take over their defense and assume liability on their behalf."'" The catch is, you have to be running it on HP equipment ;)
Now that is what we call good solid evidence (as if we didn't have enough) that SCO is pulling stuff out of it's royal... A big company like HP, doesn't just all of a sudden decide it's going to defend against a lost case.
Free Ipod here
This is a good sign. I bet HP wouldn't do this without their lawyers being absolutely certain they have nothing to fear. Their conclusion must be the same as ours...
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
This is something all the companies should have been doing from the beginning(cough cough)IBM(cough cough). Companies like to have someone to point the finger to if something goes wrong, and HP just painted a huge target on themselves ;-)
Helloooo... IBM, are you listening??? Wait, wasn't HP the supposed Fourtune 500 company that bought a SCO license?
-brain
Presumably HP are doing this because they can now lay off the risk with an insuring for a low enough price to make it worthwhile. So this doesn't just mean HP are slam dunking SCO, but others - who have no direct IT interests - are doing it too. We are winning.
AWWWW
I guess the reasoning there is you can't be sued if you can't get the product (HP hardware) to work.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Although I aplaud HP for taking the rights of their customers, I can't help feeling they have decided to do this SCO havent got a hope in heck of winning
SCO had better hurry up and think up some sweet smelling bullshit to keep that stock price inflated. News like this will start a tumble. All you people short selling SCO are about to make a bundle.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
They're going to get some good press out of this, pick up some new customers (especially on the corporate side) and at the same time generate some goodwill for themselves.
AND at the same time they likely won't have to invest much in legal work - SCO doesn't really have a case (as has been demonstrated) and doesn't have the money to take on another big lawsuit anyways (think they would go after HP while the redhat/ibm lawsuits are out there? Not likely... their warchest has to be getting a bit less weighty these days)
considering that suing any users of copyrighted works whether its software, books or etc for infringment of the creator of that work is a considered not to have alegal standing and be a frivilous lawsuit..
What exactly is Hp indemifying since it woudl automatically win any lawsuit in this case given the conditions above?
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Finally a company with enough courage to protect their customers. I wonder if anyone else will follow?
HP must be rather confident that SCOs claims wont hold up in court. I feel somewhat reassured by that.
... but the overall image of HP should get advantage of this initiative.
I also think that HP doesn't start a campaign like this without being convinced that SCO claims have no ground. I wonder if they discovered something we don't know...
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
And SCO's stock price would have gone even higher, making the pump-and-dump that much more effective.
If IBM and RedHat did this for their customers, more corporations would implement Linux and less money would go to SCO because of nervous corporate lawyers telling their IT departments to hold off or pay up.
I wonder why they waited so long, if they really wanted to assure their customers they would taken this step some time ago when SCO FUD was alive and strong. Sounds like a meaning less gesture designed to put them in a better light.
"The catch is, you have to be running it on HP equipment :)"
:->
Would it be sufficient to slap a HP sticker on my boxen?
You have to be using HP hardware. Fine, at least it demonstrates one avenue how to capitalise on the GPL :-)
Having said that, I expect Big Blue to follow this up with a reversal on their current stance. Having poured in so much money into Linux, it would appear rather hypocritical not to.
Thanks for the best news I've seen here in a while.
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
It's entirely possible that HP is making a calculated gamble that they can steal IBM's potential Linux customers out from under them by offering indemnification, even if they aren't 100% sure they have a defensible position.
Of course this brings up the point I was discussing with a friend of mine the other day: SCO's entire case for licensing binary versions of portions of the Linux kernel relies on forgiving them for ignorantly distributing these portions under the GPL. If such a courtesy is extended to SCO due to their ignorance, I doubt it would be denied to customers who were ignorantly violating SCO Group's so called intellectual property.
"Give away the stone, let the oceans take and transmutate this cold and faded anchor." - Maynard James Keenan
HP is pleased to inform the world that it is interested in investing in state-of-the-art .Net XML Web Services Technolgies, in partnership with Microsoft....:^)
BTW, will they take back Bruce Perens?
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Hopefully this will help show people that using Linux is not "dangerous". A big company like HP offering to defend any of their users sued by SCO? That sends a nice, big "frivolous lawsuit" message that suits will understand.
The only reason HP is doing this is to attract more consumers to their own platform/hardware. And you know what? Who cares. The result is the same: indemnification for potential new users means SCO's FUD will have less of an effect on Linux adoption.
Yet again, Ayn Rand is shown to be correct.
[ home ]
Maybe Carli signed her deal with the devil already ? That would explain why they can be so certain.
This is not a signature.
I wonder if my old vectra 486, (I use it as a personal webserver), as well as my newer PA-RISC boxes would both be covered. Both are manufactured by HP, but I bought them used.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
outsource more staff to India or cancel one of the $30M executive jet planes they're buying this year?
it's good that they're looking after they're linux customers. it's just a pity they don't look after their employees.
Could someone please tell me what's the deal with this Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and why do they threat to sue Linux? I thought the commies love Linux, why are they suing it all of a sudden?
I'm sooooooo confusied.
(And got Karma to burn
So we boycott HP now? Where's CmdrTaco?
How much you want to bet HP paid for a "SCO Linux License" so they could "legally" distribute linux.. notice that it HAS to run on HP hardware..
There is still that "unknown" licensee of SCO's supposed linux license..
This decision will hopefully manoeuvre SCO into the courtroom (or into shutting up) and finally being forced to tell people what IP has been infringed, if any.
I prefer to get my IT news from the Hindustan Times. Seriously though, it has a little more/different information that may be worth checking out.
Now I'll have to order that new ProLiant with Redhat, and transfer it over to the old Netserver I use to play with that we still have a warranty on ;)
Corporatism != Free Market
SCO's stock price took a little 5% dive at the end of the day yesterday. This must have been the news.
It only makes sense for systems integrators like HP and IBM to support Linux. They are providing a service in putting their systems together and want to catch as much of the value-add as possible. Paying a rent to Microsoft detracts from that.
That is huge of HP to step up to the plate, and at the same time, it is a great opportunity for HP to win customers :-D
stuff |
I think the investors are starting to realise what they are up to (finally)... Why don't they just read slashdot?!? (Slightly tongue in cheek)
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX
I bought some redhat stick a few months back since I figured companies would take security more seriously in the long run (esp after 9/11) and start switching to operating systems that can actually be secured, well, at least somewhat secured. News like this should only help those companies on the fence. Now all Red Hat has to do is improve their support a bit and in a few months I can tell my boss to go suck on it because I'LL BE RICH!!! MoOHAHAHA!!!!
HP probably doesn't think SCO has got a chance at all, and see the possibility for getting some good PR (they certainly need it, as they are not doing too well in the computer market), both in the IT community and the public at large.
Heck, if they are lucky, maybe even a few people will be lured into buying a HP computer. :)
"HP Offers Linux Purchasers Indemnification" Damnit. Now I have to visit dictionary.com. I hope this isn't an indication about the rest of my day... ..."
1. The act of indemnifying.
2. The condition of being indemnified."
great. that was helpful.
Perhaps my coffee hasn't kicked in yet, but why would anyone believe that HP would assume liability for people who may not even be customers? If they're going to be doing your company this favor, shouldn't it at least prove it's an HP customer? That seems pretty reasonable to me!
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
A
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
HP promises to indemnify any and all Earth creatures in the event an asteroid crashes into our planet and completely destroys it - which is about as likely to happen as SCO winning a lawsuit against a Linux user.
That this is stupid. Indemnification is a strawman. This is like arguing with it.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
This may a good move for HP to attract or steal customers but I'm not sure if this is good for Linux as a whole.
First this may strengthen and not weaken SCO's claims ("If SCO is wrong as anybody claims why do they offer me indemnification?")
Second I think that smaller companies have a harder sell now to bring Linux to customers since they don't have the deep pockets to give the same indemnifications for their customers.
If you can only sell Linux with an indemnification program only the Big Boys can do it and that is not something I want to see.
bye, Chris
HP is simply giving weight to something that is totally baseless. I would much rather that SCO not be offered any credence.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
zdnet, Didio, and the like, would be ranting that such a move was proof that scox has a strong case.
IBM has offered to "protect their customers" (whatever that means). Didio has already pointed to that as evidence that scox has put IBM customers are in a positon where they need IBM's protection.
From the American Heritage Dictionary...
tribute
n.
1. A gift, payment, declaration, or other acknowledgment of gratitude, respect, or admiration: put up a plaque as a tribute to his generosity.
2. Evidence attesting to some praiseworthy quality or characteristic: Winning the scholarship was a tribute to her hard work.
3.
1. A payment in money or other valuables made by one ruler or nation to another in acknowledgment of submission or as the price of protection or security.
2. A tax imposed for such payment.
4. Any payment exacted for protection.
5.
1. A payment or tax given by a feudal vassal to an overlord.
2. The obligation to make such a payment.
Yeah, sounds right to me.
SCO is going on a tour to various US cities. How could you NOT register and attend this event, and ask them to explain their position in person?
http://www.sco.com/partners/city_to_city/oct2003/
Thats what it is.. of course its very smart from HP. Look at it, if you were an IT admin, who was planning to install a linux cluster, after SCO's move, ofcorse you would either consider other solutions, or delay your plans, but now you have one more option, get it from HP (ahhm, not IBM)...
but i like it, its good, and ofcorse it proves to us that SCO is bullshiting.
The lunatic is in my head
Referencing Darl's letter, I guess HfuckingP doesn't consider the trustworthiness and stability of Open Source software to be that big of a problem for enterprise customers. I can't believe they didn't come to the negotiating table.
who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
Perhaps HP lawyers just read the news.
SCO has no intention to sue Linux end-users
And there has to be limitations and fineprint to HP offer. No way HP if offer protection from every SCO case out there. Does that mean I can actively steal SCO code and be free of all legal consequences as long as its run on HP hardware?
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
These attempts at indemnification are not good. Why? Because they are some way down the road of taking an open source project and making it proprietary. Imagine Sun or HP had wanted to make money from Linux. They could have paid SCO to do what they did and then planned on making money from indemnifications.
Note also that th indemnification is probably not worth all that much: do you really think you are the one they would come after? And how much could they realistically get for a piece of software you used in good faith?
And if it were to turn out that the indemnification was needed, you wouldn't be able to use Linux much longer anyway because its redistribution would automatically become impossible under the GPL.
If there is large selling pressure because of this, it's likely to cause a short squeeze because of the high short interest already.
Basically, when you sell short you are selling shares you don't have. The brokerage lets you do this by "borrowing" shares from another and then selling them. Now if the people who bought the shares from the short sellers start to sell them, suddenly the short seller must come up with a share to sell (so that the person who bought _their_ share can sell his). With enough short interest this can actually trigger a snowball buying frenzy shooting the share price up. As the price goes up more people sell trying to cash in... then more shorts have to cover, etc...
It was perfectly possible to go for 2 out of 3. For example "Linux distribution from HP and support contract" should have been enough, so I do believe that it is indeed a tiny catch. But, not such a big deal anyway, as someone having a support contract with them is very probably using their equipment.
1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
This gives me lots of warm fuzzies for HP. We have recently started using HP servers and high end workstations here in the software development company I work for and have been rather impressed with the fact that RedHat Linux 9 works without modification on all of this hardware. Now this support for the linux community just makes me more certain that we were correct in choosing them for our hardware source.
Ray Moore
Lead Tech/Sysadmin
NetHarmonix, Inc.
Burlington, VT USA
I have an HP DeskJet 540, connected to my Alpha
DS 10 running Debian - does that count ?
Not all 'catches' are unreasonable or underhanded. In this case, HPs 'catch' is perfectly reasonable and to be expected.
You too can have this fantastic birthday card. When you open it, it sings and dances and cries "Halleluiah". The catch, you have to give me $10.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
They did sue IBM for violating "their" IP which has nothing to do with Linux or the GPL.
While everyone who has a tech sense about them knows SCO's case is full of shit, many non-tech savy CEO's are going to lean away from linux now, HP knows this, since they sell linux servers, they have to do something to keep customers from shying away.
Protect them from the big bag wolf that will never strike. Following IBM's lead, they decided to cover what ever linux claims are resolved from the case. ITs obvious they're will be none. This isn't a big company being conseincious, as much as it is a big company covering its ass.
Article:
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
HP hardware? Why the hell would I want to run any OS on that? =P
HP has announced that the cost of their Linux servers has gone up by $699, but HP will support you from a SCO standpoint, in this new cost structure, for no additional cost...
Like HP would do it for free, they have Gulfwings (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11542) to pay for
I'm not even sure you _can_ get a support contract from HP without getting both hardware and software from them in the first place.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Sure, their execs are making a bundle, but they're not going to use it to launch lawsuits that would force them to reveal what code they're claiming to own, especially since they know they wouldn't win.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Though in reflection, their egregeous approach to an unsubstantiated claim was bound to provoke a backlash. And it was bound to be something that people would take advantage of.
Did SCO even see this? My guess, no. They're up their in their own little world.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
This is finally something that the execs and legal corps will understand. We have been doing Linux research and implementation planning at my company for months (to replace three flavors of proprietary Unix over a five year span), and the single holdup has been at the CxO level waiting for our legal team to give them a 'warm & fuzzy' that we wouldn't get sued if we were to proceed. We are already a major HP customer and had planned to use HP Intel boxen anyway. This announcement should clear the way for our progress and let us finally get to the real work!
I can't help but think that IBM will make a similar announcement within the week. How can they not?
Well, yes, it's entirely possible. On the other hand, why should HP subsidize your purchase of a Dell CPU with a legal indemnity? This is not an altruistic idea on their part. They intend to profit from the indemnity. Software hardware and service contracts are all profit centres.
The nice thing about this is that it puts the shoe to the likes of MS saying "so why don't Linux vendors indemnify their customers if this is a slam-dunk for Linux?" Well, we now have at least one large manufacturerer effectively saying "We think that SCO's blatherings are bogus -- and we're willing to put our money where our mouth is."
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Hewlett Packard was a *member* and *speaker* of SCO Forum 2003:
http://www.caldera.com/2003forum/agenda.html
SCO and HP are friends. I would not be surprised if SCO made a deal with HP to let them off the hook in order for HP to do this little indemnification campaign to sell more of their computers.
What can you do about this? Do not buy HP products, or products from people who deal with SCO.
another company making money off of Open Source development
What's wrong with making money? Just because its Open Source doesn't mean you can't make money off of it. Au contraire you are free to do what you want to do with it. If you weren't free to do as you wish with it would not be "Open" but copyrighted and patented.
and at the same time claiming to protect customers
So according to your logic you would have aplauded HP had they said that they are not going to stand behind their clients.
....even though I can't stand HP.
HP and probably everyone with a firm toehold in reality in the industry knows that SCO's claims are groundless....thus, they wait long enough that the tech world believes SCO won't have a snowball's chance.....they wait long enough for RedHat and others to file the lawsuit for them.....Then they jump in and say that they fully indemnify anyone using HP's hardware and software, so that new buyers will only invest in HP solutions as SCO vaccine. It's simple, it's marketing, it's a bit....dirty, at least morally to me...but then so's most business.
one two three four five ?!! That's the combination on my luggage!
If SCO had the guts to take on HP, they would have had the guts to take on Red Hat. In actively running away from Red Hat they have invited this.
SCO has no intention to sue Linux end-users
Originally, SCO had no intention of suing anyone at all:
According to McBride, "obviously Linux owes its heritage to UNIX, but not its code. We would not, nor will not, make such a claim."
But at the beginning of August:
"The legal liability for Linux clearly rests with the end user."
"We have the ability to go to users with lawsuits and we will if we have to."
McBride and company have never kept their story straight in the past - expecting them to do so now that they've made another statement we like would probably be overly optimistic.
Just jump on the bang wagon
/checks to: Boaz Harrosh Bezalel 26 Tel-Aviv 64683 Israel. Let 1 week for postal delivery.
- SCO showed us how to make money out of thin air
- HP is short of cash and loosing popularity
- Me too want:
I here by declare:
Any one send in $49.95 and you will receive your Linux permanent "Indemnification" certificate. This is good for any HW or Linux past present & future version. Order now while they are still available.
Send money order
who knows maybe I can finaly quit my day job...
I know what the word means, but I don't know what SUN, HP, and Microsoft are really offering when they claim to indemnify customers. Indemnify against what? Any legal/settlement costs for any frivilous lawsuit that may arise from the customer's use of the product? I doubt it.
So what exactly are they offering? Can somebody post the fine print?
(or is it indemnity?) I didn't see anybody point out that the indemnity is limited to only SCO's claims. I would assume at least some of the code IBM contributed was theirs to contribute, and if there truly is SCO code in Linux, anyone running the SCO code with the other GPL code is in violation of the license. So even though HP will protect you from SCO it sounds like IBM (and any other contributor) would then have grounds to sue you but HP will only protect you from SCO.
Wow that's some protection... Thanks HP.
The catch is, you have to be running it on HP equipment ;)
Do you HONESTLY expect them to cover your butt if you build your own systems and download linux from redhat for free? THAT is why people say OS people are commies. You expect someone to give you something for nothing.
Then other posts on here staying oh its just a marketing ploy by HP. And you guys are the EXACT SAME people who a week ago were saying "why don't these companies protect us from lawsuits???"
I say bravo HP! I build my own systems for my business and for myself personally, but I do recommend servers for my customers, and I will recommend HP for linux systems from here on out.
Just three more hours seapeople and you can finally take me away from this crappy God Damned planet full of hippies
Your talking my statement out of context. Let me try to make it easier for you to understand.
HP makes money from Linux but doesn't have spine enough to come to the defence of the "OPEN SOURCE LINUX COMMUNITY" in the face of invisible threats from a bunch of shady dealers begging for cash.
HP only says that it will protect users of HP hardware, software and support services. As a company that is involved in developing Linux, any reasonable person might conclude that HP would stand up and defend the community. They in typical fashion use the opportunity levy the rediculous claims made by SCO to persuade customers to purchase their products.
HP are a bunch of chumps !!
If IBM were to indemnify its customers as well, the FUCKS from sco would find some way to spin it in their direction as well: "IBM is acknowledging that our claims are vaild and should now pay us everything".
Christ, I hate those bastards at SCO. I wish that someone would just fucking hurry up and firebomb their fucking offices.
Don't be such a fucking idiot. You clearly arn't living in the real world if you believe for one second that any random company should indemnify each and every last Linux user from any possible legal action on the part of SCO. Why the hell should they, for a start? Its not like they made any money from a guy who runs a couple of Redhat boxes on an old no name beige box. Whats in it for them to indemnify that person?
Even if they wanted to, they'd have to answer to their shareholders. I'm not sure they could even legally indemnify anyone but their own customers, come to that.
First, SCO criticizes the industry because no one will offer indemnification. Something along the lines of "they must think our claims have merit because otherwise they would indemnify." (I can't find a link--anyone?)
Now that HP is, SCO says it must be because HP thinks SCO's claims have merit.
But HP doesn't admit that. From the article, "HP is not acknowledging anything related to SCO's actions."
Think about it. If HP really thought SCO had a case, would they be willing to take the fall when no one else will? HP marketroids are just catering to the paranoid/wimpy CIO market.
But read SCO's disgusting spin:
HP's actions this morning reaffirm the fact that enterprise end users running Linux are exposed to legal risks. 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' request for relief. HP's actions are driving the Linux industry towards a licensing program. In other words, Linux is not free.
So, feel free to deploy Linux if u haven't already. When SCO come knocking, just send em my way. I have nothing to give, so you are covered. Just tell em I said you can use Linux.
Still... more stock... to unload...
Amazing how they can try to put a good spin on this based on what HP actually said in the article.
Maybe they're doing it to get more customers, maybe not.
But that's not really important.
They're doing it, they're taking a stand, their customers know that if they ever get sued HP will be behind them and this is what's important. Of course everything they do is to get more customers in the long run... HP is a company, not a charity organization: they're here to make profits. They know that most of the linux users arent on SCO's side in this whole mess, and they're offering some help.. maybe to gain customers, but they're doing it anyways.
Remember that HP needs its customers to keep running, and they just want to treat them well so they can keep them and gain new customers.
If they wouldnt have done this, they would have done something else to try and sell their products, and im glad they're doing something profitable for everyone.
Maybe english isn't your first language, in any case LEARN TO FUCKING READ !!
Where in my posts have I said that HP should protect all users. The SCO claims are vapor therefore so is HP's umbrella of protection.
If HP doesn't want to get involved in the SCO/IBM dispute than what is this press release all about ??
Alright! Another PR to claim on the next 10Q!
.72 ;)
Doesn't seem to be working very well though, as of this writing, their stock is down
Sure, they are going to CLAIM that this acknowledges "merit". But how? And who will believe it? After all, only an INSANE company would indemnify users without having the lawyers go over and over and over possible liability.
You see, unlike SCO, HP is a going concern that has:
1. Products
2. Services
3. Revenue on 1&2
4. PROFIT on 1&2
Therefore, they aren't going to kamikazee like SCO has done, because, unlike SCaldera, HP actually has a BUSINESS that is at risk.
Besides, (IANAL), copyright law more or less forbids SCO from going after end users for damages anyway, BEFORE establishing that infringement has taken place. The chances of SCO getting ANY damages from Linux users or Linux providers is EXTREMELY thin, so thin they'd have to have a judge that they've BRIBED to give it to them.
You see, in order to claim damages from infringement, SCO has an OBLIGATION to attempt to:
1. Minimize the damage to themselves
2. Stop the infringement
Because SCO won't tell anyone WHAT it is that is infringing, they are forefiting any possible claims of damages against Linux companies and users.
And, don't forget, SCO hasn't filed ANY copyright infringement claims in ANY court, ANYWHERE, except the "Court of the Press Release".
Corporatism != Free Market
You don't say it, but apparently I do have a good enough grasp of the English language to defer meaning from context. You constantly say
HP don't stand up and call SCO claims a bunch of BS just make your company look like a hero.
HP only says that it will protect users of HP hardware, software and support services. As a company that is involved in developing Linux, any reasonable person might conclude that HP would stand up and defend the community.
Both of those comments imply to me that you believe HP should idemnify all Linux users. Certainly, the first sentence of the second quote above makes it appear that you are upset that HP are only going to indemnify HP customers. Now of course they're going to try and make money off of this. Thats their job! HP is a company, and companies exist to make money. What did you expect, hugs and candy?
If that wasn't what you meant then learn to write a structured and coherent sentence instead of concerning yourself with how well I speak English.
They are trying to use this to thier advantage.
/PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The following is being issued by The SCO Group
HP's Actions Support SCO's Position That Linux is not Free
Wednesday September 24, 9:52 am ET
# LINDON, Utah, Sept. 24
HP's actions this morning reaffirm the fact that enterprise end users running Linux are exposed to legal risks. 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' request for relief. HP's actions are driving the Linux industry towards a licensing program. In other words, Linux is not free.
We are gratified that, alone among the major Linux vendors, HP has taken a strong stand to protect their customers by indemnifying them against possible legal difficulties stemming from their use of Linux. We believe that this action signals that HP recognizes their Linux users could, in fact, face litigation because of copyright violations and intellectual property problems within Linux. As a company that strongly supports its customers, HP has done something about this.
Now that HP has stepped up for its customers, SCO once again encourages Red Hat, IBM and other major Linux vendors to do the same. We think their customers will demand it.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
Didn't mean to take it out of context...its just the way I perceived your post. I guess you could argue it that way if you like.
I, however, don't think that if "HP makes money from Linux" that they have a big moral or any other obligation to protect the "OPEN SOURCE LINUX COMMUNITY". The most I would expect them to do is speak up but not protect, as in the same way they are claiming for their customers. If things go wrong (highly unlikely) then HP would have put their foot in their mouth and they would have to foot the bill for the whole OS Linux community. I find it perfectly normal to protect your own customers. OSS doen't stipulate that you have to protect everybody that uses it. If that were the case then no one will be using OSS.
Please note that I am not in love with HP or anything. I just view this as more of a positive thing than a negative thing.
1. HP considered (and is still considering) suing SCO. It's very clearly mentioned in the Wall Street Journal article.
2. SCO just issued a press release saying HP's actions (indemnifying Linux users) supports SCO's position... Meanwhile SCO has been saying for the last few months, that IBM and Red Hat, not indemnifying customers, supports SCO's position.
3. Documents revealing SCO's motivation (or at least what they told Wall Street their motivation is) have now been revealed:
There's been a lot of speculation about SCO's motivation for their war on Linux. GROKLAW appears to have discovered the definitive documents from way back in February (before SCO filed suit against IBM).
In short, it all started about shared libraries, the idea was to combine UNIX/Linux and possibly wipe out all SCO's competitors, to put SCO on top of the food-chain over Red Hat and other Linux companies, and to force IBM to settle because of SCO's claimed ability to revoke IBM's AIX license. For full details, read GROKLAW.
In a press release SCO claims that HP's actions support SCO's position. I expect HP to shoot back a response to say HP's actions are to assure customers that SCO is full of it. Of course, that's all just more ink to keep SCO in the news and prop up their plummeting stock value.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
1. open mouth
2. insert foot
3. wish you hadn't started to appear to be siding with SCO
Hmph.. If I ever need some serious Big Iron to run a Unix(-clone) on, I'll go with IBM or HP. I prefer companies who compete on technical merits.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
In light of this announcement, I will be moving my linux firewall to a HP Vectra VL P5-133. Thanks, HP!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's a risk/benefit thing. HP get the benefit of the world knowing they're covered under HP. HP know the risk SCO's claims mean anything is less than that benefit.
Absolutely a risk / benefit thing. HP (who can certainly afford high caliber analysts) has decided that SCO is full of shit, so the risk of SCO drying up HP coffers via law suites is very slim. Now if only other companies would take notice of this (like Red Hat, perhaps).
By the way, has SCO been very quiet on the public FUD front of late? Darl seems to have lost his frothy verbal spew.
Yeah, SCO seem to have a short memory. This is what they said before:
SCO argues that if Linux distributors are so confident that no infringement has occurred, they should indemnify their end users for any liability.
The catch is, you have to be running it on HP equipment ;)
If I were going to take pain, grief, and suffering for someone, they better be using my products otherwise there is no justification for the money being spent, the manhours, and etc.
Fear not.
On the history of UNIX and on the details of intellectual property law, the average Nasdaq investor is less knowledgable than the average slashdotter.
But on the mechanics of business disputes and the running of companies, they are more knowledgable. They are not idiots, and they will interpret this as "HP's lawyers have spent a lot of time looking at this, and HP are betting BIG MONEY that SCO are full of shit."
That's the most fucking idiotic comment I've read in a long time.
The systems "must not be used for much if you can change the OS and the architecture and still have those systems provide the same services"? *What*? Yeah, there are a *few* apps that exist only on SPARC, but Solaris has been eating it *hard* in the market for a while, and a lot of Solaris software vendors have been working on x86 Linux versions. The writing's on the wall.
May we never see th
Where is the Official Press Release from HP to this effect?
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
Lawyers have pulses? SCO now offically stands for "Smoking Crack Operation" Exactly. I'd say a few SCO execs are likely to get a call from our friends at the SEC, and they ain't gonna be talking about whether or not Tennessee's going to a bowl game this year. This post may contain anti-SCO content sposored secretly by IBM.
This Comment was generated with the Comment-O-Matic for SCO Stories.
SCO's response was issued this morning. This just gets more insane each passing week. My BSD discs will arrive in the next couple of days, so it's kind of moot for me, but Jesus, those SCO fuckers are crazy.
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
ahem... not to say he's lying - but exercising due skepticism about his contacts would be responsible after just finding out you've not been exercising due skepticism about your sources.
With SCO being counter-sued for IP theft they don't have enough money in their coffers (nor in the Canopy Group coffers) to sustain a legal battle against the charges, and they've exhausted all takers for their bogus Unix 'license'. MS and Sun can only do that once, and no one else is interested.
Unfortunately, MS and Sun DO have a way to continue funding SCO's harrassment. Ever wonder why the SCOX price keeps rising in spite of bad news for SCO? A major reason is because an investment firm that has Melinda Gates on it's board buys up SCOX as it becomes availiable. I wouldn't be surprised to find out Sun is buying up SCOX through a cut-out as well. Those purchases keep the stock price up and reward SCO for their actions against Linux and IBM.
A popular meme here is that SCO is pumping and dumping. That isn't quite it. They're pumping and squeezing. They aren't going to sell so much stock that they lose control of the company or leave MS and Sun with some 'splainin' to do with the SEC. What they will do is prolong this as long as possible or least as long as MS and Sun make it worth their while.
Doesn't seem to be working very well though, as of this writing, their stock is down .72 ;)
That's OK for SCO. It just means that Melinda Gates investment firm has to buy up the selloff and pump the price back up.
Guess what Dell will be doing next.
Dell already made their move - they're not going to do anything per indemnification of customers (coming straight from Michael Dell himself).
It's a shame, as I like (and buy Dell - writing this from an Inspiron 8200 in fact). Looks like the next batch of servers ordered will be saying HP on them...
*scoove*
Sun has been positioning itself as the provider of the "legally unencumbered" version of Linux. Their investment gave them the freedom to separate their coming distro apart from the others. Thankfully, HPs move puts an end to that nonsense.
One man's pink plane is another man's blue plane.
Darl ? Is that you ?
I think most of the debate here is missing the point. If the practice of indemnifying people who use your software becomes standard, it's the end of the open source development model. If a person who writes some code and wants to distribute it will be assumed to take responsibilty for the consequences of it's use, the only "people" who are going to be releasing code are going to be corporations that can afford lawyers.
Wait, wasn't HP the supposed Fourtune 500 company that bought a SCO license?
No.. Although it was speculated at the time. Also, HP was an original sponsor of the SCO users conference, but pulled out.
The latest 10-Q quarterly report from SCO makes it clear that Sun was the other licensee:
We initiated the SCOsource effort to review the status of these existing licensing and sublicensing agreements and to identify others in the industry that may be currently using our intellectual property without obtaining the necessary licenses. This effort resulted in the execution of two license agreements during the April 30, 2003 quarter. The first of these licenses was with Sun Microsystems, Inc. ("Sun"), a long-time licensee of the UNIX source code and a major participant in the UNIX industry, and was a "clean-up" license to cover items that were outside the scope of Sun's initial UNIX license. The second license was to Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft")"
Red Hat has already counter-sued SCO.
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
They've been taunting RedHat, IBM, et al. to offer indemnity to their users if they think there's nothing to the SCO claim.
Now, and as soon as somebody does it they claim that doing so supports SCO's case "that Linux is not free".
Man, I didn't know you could still talk out of your ass when you were so full of shit... ! q:]
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
We just bought about 20K worth of Red Hat licensing from HP.
l
This is a good starting link for those that do not believe:
http://www.hp.com/hps/linux/lx_subscription.htm
Well, it's kind of like HP issuing protection from fairy attacks, but only to their customers.
As long as you're issuing bogus protection, you might as well go all the way and say you'll protect everyone from fairies.
We bought several of their new Linux based XW workstations last summer and have been *very* satisfied with the hardware. It's top notch stuff that is very solid. It comes at a reasonable price too. We checked out Dell (the Walmart of PC makers) IBM and gateway as well, but *no* company had the quality, price and support for Linux down as well as HP has.
Perhaps my coffee hasn't kicked in yet, but why would anyone believe that HP would assume liability for people who may not even be customers? If they're going to be doing your company this favor, shouldn't it at least prove it's an HP customer? That seems pretty reasonable to me!
You missed the smilie on the end. The author is subtly saying that HP are not his preferred source of machines (ie it's a dig at HP).
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Let me follow up on that and explain why I think this is bad. Short term this sounds good, defusing SCO and all that. But long-term, if this indemnification-meme takes hold, it'll create a barrier of entry for smaller companies/distributions that they might not be able to overcome.
Picture the suits buying only from linux companies that "indemnify". It doesn't matter that such assurances are empty and hollow, they'll have a cost associated with the business-wise when banks and insurance companies start doing risk-calculations and adding on "indemnification" as a future possible cost in order to provide their services.
So the small guys can't afford to "indemnify" against the strawman, and the big guys get to rule the market. HP are still big, so we can see why they don't mind playing along with SCO's new in-word.
One day you might not sheer this development.
... vut of course, no-one is listening to little me. That's okay, I'm used to it.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
This is still a lousy tactic, but the announcement comes at a funny timing. Just after the open source letter response. I would say HP doesn't have anything to lose by offering indemnity. 1) They will make some money. This can be fully offered as a service under GPL. 2) They will offer existing customers (with concerns) a better piece of mind. 3) They will offer new customers more assurance to buy their product. However, at the timing of this - I would say HP knows it doesn't have to worry about losing to SCO. They know as should most of the open source community that the SCO case has no merit. So in all reality they get more money, improve customer relationships and don't have a real concern with SCO. Looks win-win to them. SCO has tried very successfully to put a bad spin on this: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT= SVBIZINK3.story&STORY=/www/story/09-24-2003/000202 3386&EDATE=WED+Sep+24+2003,+09:52+AM
But in all reality, HP's announcement helps reaffirm that SCO is now a lizard backed into a corner and is flairing its gills to fend off impending doom.
I actually feel sorry for the investors who aren't savy enough to keep from losing their money. Down 15% from its high. It won't be much longer. It is going to plummet.
Poor Darl. I feel like Noah looking at Darl trying hard to tred water. He just doesn't know that today is just day 1... he still has 39 days to tred water.
It don't mean a thing...
As SCO has repeated endlessly, this is about IP in the 21st century. And you can be assured, this Grand New Worldview is decidedly NOT in the best interests of you and me.
Tho not obvious, this is in fact, about killing off the whole concept of free works based on collective and continuing collaboration, including the likes of GPLed software.
It works on a couple of levels, the first goes like this...
Today, there is a presumption of being innocent when a consumer becomes embroiled in an exchange that happens to involve a copyright infringment. To be held accountable, the author of the work must show the customer knew, or should have known, the work was infringing.
If vendors make "indemnification" the norm, customers can be claimed to "should have known" of the possibility the work was infringing if indemnification is not attached to the exchange.
Now, if I, a mear mortal living on a WalMart paycheck, sends you a copy of a GPLed program I surely cannot indemnify the work is free of infringments. But, since indemnifcation is the legal norm, I've also given you cause to suspect the work is infringing. You are now encumbered for investigating the validity of the work.
Now you, a mear mortal 'Driving the Big Rigs', are wholly ill equipped to perform such an investigation. You must enlist either lawyers to do the search, or pay someone who has lawyers to indemnify the work.
In the end, all free distribtuion of works is dead.
At the second level, things go like this...
Vendors will indemnify only that which furthers their own agenda. The HP version of Linux, but not Red Hat's, BSD, or Herd. Thus they setup semi-closed communities around diverging code bases, which will ultimately lead to forked implementations.
Back to Unix square one. Well, at least the code is open and the semi-closed communities can cross pollenate, right? Nope. HP may not have the option of accepting code from Red Hat's codebase, since Red Hat may choose not offer to indemnify HP for that work. Without this "license" from Red Hat, or HP trying to complete a (probably impossible) copyright search, HP cannot continue to offer its own idemnity plan.
Unix, square one. Just the way the Vendors like it.
At the third level, things go like this...
Even if you and I can duck the newly fabricated legalities of end-user "knew, or should have known", corporations and businesses will surely not. The will be bared from contributing to unsupported GPLed works, mainly becuase, without indemnification, they will be financially bared from securing them in the frist place.
Seems like everyone is vying for a share of the Linux user's wallet. If SCO doesn't get it with it's licensing fee, then HP'll get it by providing a protected version if you'll pay THEM what amounts to a license fee (in buying their hardware).
Nice to see so many hungry for a piece of the Linux market I suppose, but the very fact that a user is using Linux may just be a sign that he's rather tight with his money...
According to a story in ComputerWorld, the contract with HP disallows changes to the source! Isn't this contrary to the GPL?
I just saw SCO's spin on the story. You can find it here:
HP's Actions Support SCO's Position That Linux is not Free
Basically their spin is that HP has recognized that there is a problem with Linux and that "HP's actions are driving the Linux industry towards a licensing program. In other words, Linux is not free."
Yet again, SCO has missed the point of "free" software where they are thinking free as in price, not free as in freedom of the code. Anyone can charge whatever they want for Linux. Whether they provide support, indemnification, or beer for that charge is up to them as long as the code remains free.
They're also trying to put a good spin on the Bitch-slap that HP just gave to their stock price.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
I just saw SCO's spin on the story. You can find it here:
HP's Actions Support SCO's Position That Linux is not Free
Basically their spin is that HP has recognized that there is a problem with Linux and that "HP's actions are driving the Linux industry towards a licensing program. In other words, Linux is not free."
Yet again, SCO has missed the point of "free" software where they are thinking free as in price, not free as in freedom of the code. Anyone can charge whatever they want for Linux. Whether they provide support, indemnification, or beer for that charge is up to them as long as the code remains free.
They're also trying to put a good spin on the Bitch-slap that HP just gave to their stock price.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
I just saw SCO's spin on the story. You can find it here:
HP's Actions Support SCO's Position That Linux is not Free
Basically their spin is that HP has recognized that there is a problem with Linux and that "HP's actions are driving the Linux industry towards a licensing program. In other words, Linux is not free."
Yet again, SCO has missed the point of "free" software where they are thinking free as in price, not free as in freedom of the code. Anyone can charge whatever they want for Linux. Whether they provide support, indemnification, or beer for that charge is up to them as long as the code remains free.
They're also trying to put a good spin on the Bitch-slap that HP just gave to their stock price.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
The catch is, you have to be running it on HP equipment
Can BMW.WilliamsF1's FW25 F1 Car be considered as HP equipment ?
-- Hasbullah bin Pit (sebol)
But if redistributors and end users are in fact liable for the transgressions of submitters or maintainers, I think that can be worked around. What if there was a clause which said,
The idea would be that if someone sued a user, the user would be reimbursed by the distributor (say, Red Hat), who would in turn be reimbursed by the maintainer (say, Linus), who would in turn be reimbursed by whoever submitted the infringing patch. In other words, the liability would propagate up the distribution stack to the dishonest submitter. Asking legal advice on slashdot: would such a clause stand?
If so, it would be a selling point of open source software, as you would be indemnified from the likes of SCO. It would also mean OSS authors liable if their code isn't theirs, which would directly counter most of SCO's accusations.
Litigious bastards
HP has to take care not to sell that indemnifiaction to SCO. That could mean that HP indemnifies SCO from SCO-related actions, i.e. anything. Hmm. Let's hope SCO doesn't read this ;-)
Indemnifying customers against SCO-related claims. That's like indemnifying the american people against lawsuits from the Coalition of Oppressed Smurfs.
Since SCO has no basis for suing most Linux users, this indemnification is a worthless insurance. You might as well be selling insurance against damages from flying pigs that travelled through time from 1939. The chance of that happening is about as high as average Linux users being ordered by a court to pay SCO.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
DYBTFA ?
This is not a signature.
I haven't heard much out of SCO reguarding indemnification of their clients on the IBM patent issues, when those patent issues are pursued, SCO is gone and anyone running SCO is fsck'd for patent infringement, they can pay IBM (if they license) or switch to Linux :-)
Their suit is BS and companies know it, so now they can offer indemnification as an incentive to go with their products over another company's, knowing they'll never have to defend it.
SCO is actually helping companies sell more Linux.
I love it!
--CyberdogX