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.
So, just in case you misconstrued HP's offer, your close friend SCO is happy to put some words in HP's mouth.
How thoughtful.
Although HP's disclaimer to indemnify your machine if you make modifications to the Linux kernel yourself, I think HP had every right to do this.
./ readers will get that far into the article :)
After all, what would stop you INTENTIONALLY adding in copyright SysV code to the kernel, and then asking HP to legally protect you from something that you should be responsible for yourself.
This is, of course, pointed out in the NewsForge article, but I doubt that more than half of
From Kuro5hin.org: Schopenhauer's guide to dishonest argument. 38 methods to cheat your way into winning an argument.
The scary thing is that SCO is probably quite familiar with this kind of thing, and knows exactly what it's doing.
What's interesting is that HP obviously has access to SCO's Holy System V Magic Code (TM), and undoubtedly did their own comparisons before issuing this annoucement...
From the article as written by Roblimo:
After passing through the Timothy filter: "HP's Martin Fink roundly denies SCO's backhanded interpretation."
C'mon, man. At least make an effort.
...it doesn't even make sense. Why would HP indemnify if they think they're going to have to back up thousands of users with huge damages? There's no way HP does this if the lawsuit has ANY merit.
I know I'm preaching to the converted, but SCO's take isn't even logical within their own little world.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
All clues point to Computer Associates as the unnamed Fortune 500 company.
If you match this article's date with the date of SCO's announcement of a fortune 500 sell it all adds up.
news.com article: CA settles Canopy contract suit
I'm sure Canopy cut them a good deal in order to claim they had a fortune 500 company signing up for SCOSource.
I've always wondered about people like Darl McBride. Obviously, they are paid a great deal of money to put a certain spin on things, and they try very hard to do it. What I've never understood about the psychology of it is this: do they actually believe themselves? Do they start out knowing they are lying, then convince themselves about it along the way? Or does the notion of truth not even cross their minds, as they are busy trying to define the reality they want?
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
Bruce needs to take another read of HPs offer, they do not merely offer to refund the purchase price. They say they will take up the case on your behalf.
Has Eric Raymond found incriminating similarities between Linux and the System V r4 source trees???
1) August 20th: In his "Smoking Gun Fizzles", Raymond agressively attacks SCO's claims. He even reveals that he has access to proprietary System V R4 sources.
2) Sept 3rd: Eric Raymond publishes "Comparator", a program for the comparison of things like large source trees, with the obvious intention of using it in the context of the SCO case. Eric says "I am grinning a grin that should frighten the thieves and liars at SCO out of a week's sleep." (see eweek)
3) Sept 9th - Eric writes his response to Darl McBride's Open Letter. He defends himself against Darl's personal attacks and misrepresentations. However, it is notable that he makes no claims that he believes SCO has no evidence, and he ends with:
"We will swiftly meet our responsibilities under law, either removing the allegedly infringing code or establishing that it entered Linux by routes which foreclose proprietary claims."
His comments today refer very strictly to the indemnity issue.
Surely Raymond has run comparator on the System V R4 source tree. What are the results? In his Smoking Gun Fizzles piece he had no hesitation to release a diff of Linux and his SVr4 sources, flouting it in the face of SCO lawyers. Yet now he is unwilling to compile an analysis of his Comparator results??
Does Eric Raymond's gaurded comments since releasing Comparator indicate that the results were not favorable????
braddock gaskill
As much as I like newsforge, I have an issue with the fact that I have only seen the rebuff there. Going to the yahoo summary page for SCOX shows the story on HP's indemnity offer, SCO's stupid press release, and then a couple of newswire articles about the offer and SCO's pr with no rebuttal to the SCO position.
HP needs to clarify its position in the main stream press. What impression are investors being left with?
Post anonymously - For when your opinion embarrasses even you!
:)
On a serious note, didn't SCO banter about how if IBM/(insert other company here) was so sure that SCO had no case, why hadn't they offered indemnification?
Even if I'm remembering correctly, it sure isn't surprising. I'm at work and don't have the time to research a link. Anyone care to find this?
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
When Sun started offering indemnification as part of its new line of Linux desktops, Sun was flamed to hell and back over the weekend. Sun's indemnification was said to be unneeded, FUD, part of an evil plot with SCO, etc., etc. When HP offers it, now apparently it's a good thing, its what businesses want, it is supposed to help Linux, etc., etc.
So, which is it going to be? Is it good, in which case Sun was blazing a trail for Linux adoption in business markets, or bad, in which case HP is spewing FUD, in a secret pact with SCO, following Sun's lead, etc., etc.
Now granted there are plenty of PHBs in the world who are clueness enough to think they need indemnification, and now will get all warm and fuzzy about HP's actions. But it's not needed, won't help, and just plays right into SCO's hands. Not that it will make that much of a difference in the end.
From RedHat: To further protect the integrity of Open Source software and the Open Source community, Red Hat has established the Open Source Now Fund. The purpose of the fund will be to cover legal expenses associated with infringement claims brought against companies developing software under the GPL license and non-profit organizations supporting the efforts of companies developing software under a GPL license. Red Hat has pledged one million dollars to be provided as funding in this initiative. Do you really think RH will just let their customers hang out to dry on this one? This is my point: they aren't just sitting back waiting for SCO to attack their customers, they are actively engaged in going after SCO right now in order to prevent SCO from ever having an opportunity to go after users.
I do not have a signature
HP has the situation nailed. Even if SCO wins, you cannot litigate a second time for the same event. IANAL Win or lose, IBM will take the brunt of the SCO legal challenge. It is very unlikely that SCO would be able to sue Linux users after IBM lawsuit is finally done. This is pure publicity. There is minimal danger that HP would ever spend a cent on any lawsuit.
Extra two cents:
Lindows claims Caldera contractually gave Lindows the right to use Caldera source in their Linux distribution. That GPL license that LIndows uses would validate the continued distribution of Linux with SCO/Caldera IP if Lindows is within the contractual rights that Caldera granted it.
Sun has unique agreement with AT&T, having co-developed SRV4. They distribute Linux too. This also could invalidate much of SCO Claims