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.
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.
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!