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 ;)
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.
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
Proof of the fact that all commercial players are using scare tactics to sell kit, that is. Those vendors that offer "indemnification" provided you use their hardware or whatever catch there is, are just as bad as SCO.
Vendors are slowly realising that customers are increasingly clued-up about where, how, and on what they spend their money. I was with a customer recently that had been badgered and hammered around by Sun to upgrade their systems. The customer saw no good reason to do so, and subsequently, Sun came around to provide a "free systems review", with a resulting verdict that the software and (SPARC) hardware was out of date. The customer agreed about the software part, and deployed Linux across the ageing SPARC estate. The stuff is now faster, better, and easier to manage, and they recon they a have a few more years of life out of those systems.
Sun turned around and claimed that the systems are now unsupported - not a big deal, customer said. if it breaks we will buy new (Intel.... hehe). Sun then turned around and went to the CEO and the legal department, talking about indemnification, SCO, courtcases and the world coming to an end. Luckily, the customer was not fazed, and Sun lost a *lot* of goodwill in that place. However, other customers will be scared and bullied into going along.
If they only way you can flog your hardware is by using scare tactics, then you are *really* selling a pile of crap.....
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
The article clearly says that they are not paying SCO a dime. Maybe the companies that paid were Microsoft and Sun?
BTW this is a clear win for HP against both IBM and Dell. Their salesmen can say stuff like "See you are 100% protected, we give a complete solution (unlike dell)etc."
Unless they end up having to actually (extremely unprobable) pay the 699 for all customers.
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
The HP piece clearly lays out the extent of indemnity HP is giving its (hopefully) valued customers, I really doubt they would be slipshod or stupid enough to "fineprint" their customers into a lawsuit. They would probably just rely on the OSS community rectifying any violating code as soon as it is shown to them.
The piece on SCO not sueing is full to the brim of hypocritical statements by SCO execs and lawyers which show that they may or may not sue, probably depending on how many of gullible Companies fall for their $699 invoice.
SCO has no intention to sue Linux end-users
That was an SCO Australia spokesperson talking about the chances of SCO suing someone Down Under. Presuming that SCO had a real case (a big presumption), SCO US could still file suit and honestly say "That wasn't us talking, that was our aussie subsidiary".
"Diplomacy is the art of telling a lion 'nice kitty, kitty, kitty' while you search for a big rock"
- - Unknown
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Almost all the code contributed to the Linux kernel for the Itanium port was done by HP.
I thought HP actually pulled out of SCOForum at the last minute.
A lot of things. See http://opensource.hp.com/
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
Maybe good as a competitive move against IBM, but bad for Linux and good for SCO...
HP's Actions Support SCO's Position That Linux is not Free
Yay, HP! You've handed SCO an opportunity to spread more FUD. Do you think we'll be hearing from Ms. DiDio soon?
Gee, I wonder why IBM didn't do this.
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")"
You're sure about that? From another article on the same announcement:
I especially like the part: "Rather than deny the existence of substantial structural problems with Linux, as many open source leaders have done, HP is acknowledging that issues exist". That's just classic. In reality, HP is doing the opposite, and stating that they believe there's no problem, and that they're willing to put their own legal muscle behind the assertion. If HP believed there were problems with Linux, I'd think that they'd rather just drop it as soon as possible, rather than open themselves up to legal liability.
Then again, lets go over the facts. Red Hat has no right to believe their likely to be sued by SCO, according to SCO's recent legal filings, yet Red Hat is both a user and a distributor of Linux, and we are told that all users of Linux will be liable to SCO for damages from the misuse of SCO's copyrights and trade secrets. We're told that vendors should provide indemnification to users if they truly believe there's no IP problems with Linux, and the moment one does, SCO uses it as proof that there's IP problems with Linux. They tell us, their lawsuit with IBM is about copyright, trade secrets and patents, when their lawsuit is more about contract law than any of the IP laws. They announce they'll send out 1,500 invoices, and never do. They get "disappointed" when Red Hat decides they don't wish to blindly pay licensing fees to SCO, and try to get a declaratory judgement from the courts instead of being haunted by the spectre of a SCO lawsuit for years to come. I just want to know one thing -- Why is anyone in the press still listening to them when they obviously can't get their story straight?
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
After SCO said that, HP's only comment was that that was "an interesting spin." I'd take that to mean that it's definitely HP's intention that their indemnification reflect badly on SCO's case.