Slashdot Mirror
HP Clarifies Indemnification Offer For Linux Users
After HP extended an offer of indemnification to users who purchase Linux through HP, SCO issued a strange press release: in it, SCO claims that HP's action actually supports SCO's claims that "issues exist" with the Linux kernel's legal status. In an article at NewsForge (like Slashdot, part of OSDN), HP's Martin Fink roundly denies SCO's backhanded interpretation; a followup story quotes Bruce Perens, Linus Torvalds and ESR on the HP offer. Linus: "Indemnification is wonderful. It might be a cynical marketing tactic, but if people are asking for it, why not?" The first article also points out the limited nature of HP's indemnification claims, which are definitely not blanket protection -- installing patches not approved by HP could well make them wash their hands of your machine.
Did anyone really expect anything different from SCO? They'll spin it anyway they can. HP mearly looked at the situation, siad "hey, they can't legally do anything anyway" and issued what amounted to risk-free PR. Pretty pointless though. If I offer self-propelled airborn pork insurance, according the SCO's logic, pigs not only can fly, but do it all the time.
I welcome HPs actions. But I can't help but wait for the other shoe to drop. Paranoid? Skeptical? Who was the other licensee?
Something's afoot. I really wish that this had all been cleared up by Labor Day. It was a nice Summmer story (Summer of the SCO). But now it's just tedious. SCO has time on their side. The longer they can hang the cloud over it all, the better for them. FUD is a mysterious and marvelous thing.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
later...
SCO: HP is indemnifying users against us because they know we're right!
So, let me get this straight... According to SCO, HP is voluntarily indemnifying users because it knows that by doing so it will end up paying out big cash to SCO to make reparations for using SCO's code? Sure. Makes sense to me. (Can you spot the sarcasm?)
That's some really SCO'ed up logic for you!
Quoth he
"It's all academic anyway..."
Copyright defends everyone who authors a work.
Abolishing it would be simply ridiculous (and throws the GPL out the window, for those who care). I'm amazed that someone here would even propose it.
...if you can't lock code under copyright anymore. It will have served its purpose.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
The only thing that it confirms is that companies are worried about the SCO lawsuit. Companies buying Linux don't want to expend the resources to hire lawyers to give them a risk assessment of the SCO lawsuit. While everyone on /. might know that it is junk, businessmen in the real world haven't been following it at all. They just see that there is a pending lawsuit that could expose them to liability. This exposure is an additional cost to them of buying Linux. Thus, HP is just telling them that they will assume that cost. This does not mean that SCO is correct in any way.
Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
I actually agree with SCO that HP's sending the message "phear free software, pay us for the right to use GPL stuff safely".
I hope companies are smart enough to stay away from this type of extortion.
Indemnification == extra cost you're paying HP, so they can buy insurance to pay people like SCO. This is a bad thing.
SCO Before: If companies really thought that we don't have a case, they would offer indemnification.
SCO Now: Since HP is offering indemnification, that means they think we DO have a case.
They don't have a SHRED of continuity in their statements, do they? The above statements are BOTH demonstrably stupid, and mutually exclusive. Methinks Darl needs to take a logic class.
-3Suns
~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted
...so HP has seen SCO's source. They *know* that there is no merit to SCO's claims. If there were a hint of a claim, you can bet that they wouldn't be leaving their asses uncovered with an indemnification offer.
I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
do they actually believe themselves?
They're doing their job, because their happiness is tied up in their success/wealth, same as you and me. When you go to work as a sysadmin/programmer/telemarketer/burger flipper, do you think you're doing the "right" thing? If you do, great. If not, you're being hypocritical for pointing out that Darl is a bigger liar than you are.
Personally, I'm a hypocrite, but at least I know it.
A month ago, the vultures at SCO were trying to claim that there was "something" to their nonsense claims simply because IBM REFUSED to offer any kind of indemnity. "Why won't IBM offer indemnity to their customers?" they asked.
And now that HP is offering it, they claim that this too shows that STILL UNPROVEN CLAIMS have merit.
'Scuse me? If you don't provide indemnity then we're right, and if you DO, then we're right as well?
Nonsense.
In Red Hat's defense I'd like to point out that rather than some mamby-pamby "indemnification" nonsense Red Hat actually took the far more courageous step of suing SCO over SCO's out of court claims.
I do not have a signature
Quite certainly they did, and either they found nothing or they found something that in a court of law (where sometimes reality is suspended) they found a sticking point. Being a UNIX vendor themselves, "if" there were something questionable in there, by indemnifying users of HP Products running HP authorized software only, they are covering their asses. If it comes down to a court fight, they can always use a fallback of "We released our authorized software on our authorized machines." Something similar to the SCO argument of why their Linux flavor is still being released. Either way zero risk for them, and good PR.
"You say my way of thinking cannot be tolerated? What of it?"
You are making a big assumption that HP has thousands of Linux customers. Maybe they have only a few and this wouldn't cost them much money, but it's great publicity. It also puts lots of pressure on IBM and Dell to do something similar. If IBM or Dell had to cover all their Linux customers it would cost them MUCH more then HP.
If he says that HP has no official position, that means that he denies SCO's interpretation that HP supports SCO's position, doesn't it?
Also note that Fink said: "HP's thinking was the indemnification was better than countersuits and other possible measures." In other words, even thought about countersuing them. They wouldn't think about that as a serious possibility if they believed that SCO's claims are valid. They probably decided to indemnify their customers instead because it gives them a marketing advantage as well as hurting the credibility of SCO's claims.
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
SCO will die much before any BSD, but that's just too easy to predict. It's seems to me that SCO is just making a big bluff in pretending that they "own" Linux. Their CEOs will run with the money and declare bankruptcy when the bluff is exposed.
We should start a pool for which date SCO will declare bankruptcy, I bet on December 18th 2003.
The publicity is only worth anything to the linux crowd, which is worthless if they're only selling a few units. For this to mean anything, they'd have to actually sell units, and at that point, there's a constant ratio of Lawsuit damages/unit sold, and there's no way they come out on top if that risk is real.
It also puts lots of pressure on IBM and Dell to do something similar.
It does, but I suspect their strategy is NOT to simply lose less money than Dell and IBM by shipping fewer units and defending fewer customers. How does that play out, they intentionally sucker IBM into a game where they all lose money and IBM goes out of business, leaving all IBM's customers to HP? It's not a zero-sum game where if IBM loses, HP wins. If that lawsuit were real and both companies were indemnifying, they both lose.
Really, no matter how you look at it, no company does this if they think there's a real risk of liability
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Didn't Darl say that since IBM and RedHat WOULDN'T indemnify their customers it was proof that there were issues? Now its proof if they DO indemnify... make up your mind Darl.
I think we can all agree that SCO's lawsuits are the wretched spasms of a dying corporation, grasping at life any way it can in its final moments. Perhaps this sounds too biased, but I must admit that I am extremely offended by SCO's actions. Although Linux is, in the long run, not as important as the Open Source concept, the principle of the thing must be defended. I will never give up my operating system, and neither should you.
Esoteric reference.
However, if you look at SCO's stock price over the past 24 hours, the indemnification and/or SCO's response to it has done SCO more harm than good.
Hooray!
The major question I've yet to see answered regarding indemnification is this:
Why would customers even need indemnification against SCO? What action could SCO bring against someone using (but NOT distributing) Linux, even supposing the alleged code infringement did happen in the first place?
In other words, indemnification against what? As I understand it, if a Linux user isn't distributing software, they can't be violating anyone's copyrights with respect to that program.
I see three possibilities:
Anyone care to clarify?
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
If it were up to me to speak for the entire population of the planet except SCO I would send Darl a letter to the following effect:
Darl:
Nobody in their right mind believes SCO has any claim whatever with regard to Intellectual Property rights against Linux or any other Open Software products. Your actions show that you do not believe so either. People who have legitimate legal claims file lawsuits. They have no need to posture, threaten, or otherwise attempt to influence potential defendants. Consider yourself to hereby be officially laughed at uncontrollably by an entire community and know that you have made a fool of yourself and drove the final nail in the coffin of SCO. Take solice in knowing that, aside from being the detriment to a few unfortunate employees of SCO, you are by and large a harmless joke. We have, however, grown tired of hearing the same joke over and over, and it is beginning to get very old. Therefore, we will no longer be paying any attention to you or responding to your ridiculous diatribe in any manner way, shape, or form. Say whatever you want. Nobody believes a word you say, and so nobody is listening.
Sincerely,
The Open Source community
Thereafter, no articles would appear in Slashdot or any Open Source affiliated news source dealing with SCO in any way.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Indemnification does not imply that what is being indemnified against is a valid claim. I'm indemnified through auto insurance against damages suffered or caused should I strike another car on the way home from work or if the other driver strikes me. That doesn't mean that it is OK to go play "bumber cars" on the interstate. HP is simply agreeing under certain circumstances to stand up for their commercial customers to any (unjustified in this case, IMBHO) claims made by SCO.
It doesn't make SCO's case any better (or worse), no more than my potential claim that I should be allowed to drive right over the slow sunday drivers who won't get out of the fast lane this evening on the way home justifies me to do so.
SCO: Because we own our "IP" and Linux vendors don't, we could provide indemnification (but don't). If Linux vendors where confident about Linux "IP" then they could provide indemnification too.
HP: Not only could would confidently provide indemnification, but we WILL including for popular packages like Samba.
SCO: See! See! This shows they are confident that Linux does has an issue!
Potental Customer: But you said if there was an issue then they would not provide indemnification. Based on that logic, doesn't the fact they do now provide indemnification mean they are confident that there is not an issue!
SCO: But if there was no issue then there would be no need for indemnification. Anyways, we bring to the table over a decade more expierence with Unix which is what you really should be looking at when going to buy a server OS you need to trust.
Potental Customer: You did not really answer my question. But, alright, let's say I'm interested in using Samba but my company is worried about legal issues of using Samba instead of a true Windows server. Do you provide indemnification for Samba like HP does?
SCO: We provide Samba and with over a decade more of expierence in building an OS, Samba will run even better on our OS. Since we own our IP, you do not need to worry about indemnification.
Potental Customer: Again, your not really answering my question. Are you actually saying you own Samba?!
SCO: You misunderstood, we own IP the OS. Also, we have the expierence your company need to be successful.
Potental Customer: So you don't own Samba.
SCO: No. We own what it takes for Samba to be successful.
Potental Customer: Ok. So, do you provide indemnification for Samba like HP does?
SCO: You don't need that from us.
Potental Customer: Do you provide indemnification for anything ?
SCO: There is not any issues with our IP, so you don't need indemnification from us but if your willing to wait, we might be able to quote you a price for that.
Potental Customer: Indemnification does not come standard with any of your software?!
SCO: No, we own our IP so there is no issue that requires you to need it.
Potenal Customer: But in the case of Samba, my legal dept. wants me to have it and HP offers it. SCO had said it could provide indemnification.
SCO: We can provide indemnification for our IP. Samba is not our IP so we don't provide indemnification for it.
Potental Customer: But it sounds like you don't provide indemnification for the OS either.
SCO: You don't need it.
Potental Customer: But you said you could provide it.
SCO: We can! We own our IP.
Potental Customer: You "could" but do NOT provide it! It sounds like a vapor offer to me.
SCO: I'll have someone get back to you with a qoute to get indemnification for our IP.
Potental Customer: It sounds like I have to pay extra for something you made sound like SCO was already providing and even then won't provide for Samba which is the whole issue anyways. You have wasted enough of my time with this run-around. HP has gotten past the "could" and really is providing a real indemnification for Samba which my legal dept. can bank on. Good bye.
SCO: But we are SCO! To be successful you will someday need to buy from us! You'll be sorr...
[click]