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.
Didn't see that one coming, did we?
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.
"But I lost my indemnification, you insensitive clod!" - Linus Torvalds
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
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
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.
The article was posted at 9:52 am. Between 9 and 10 am SCO's stock was going UP. But since the release, look at at the graph (upper right hand corner)... Correlation? Interesting eh? I wonder how low it'll go between 2pm and 4pm :)
Go here for teh [sic] funny.
Must be another glitch in the matrix.
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
It sounds to me like the Marketing dept. of HP jumped the gun on this one. 1. Guarantee customers will not have to pay license fees. 2. Free press ? 4. Profit. Unfortunately, by guaranteeing against SCO's claim, they didn't realize that they might be guaranteeing against some other companies not-yet-filed claim (the ? above), and hence might not get to 4.
Children in the backseats don't cause accidents. Accidents in the back seats cause children.
All that is left of SCO are a couple of talking head executives and a computer that churns out press releases:
...
for (i=1; i num_companies; i++) {
if ( !indemnify(company[i]) ) {
press_release(company[i], NO_INDEMNIFY);
else {
press_release(company[i], INDEMNIFY);
}
}
OMG, I just released their source code! The horror
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
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..."
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.
This gets more amusing each day. It's like watching a bratty child try to argue against something they have little knowledge about.
HP: "We're offering indemnity to our customers who..."
SCO: "Ha! So you admit that your customers need indemnity!"
HP: "No, we're saying that should a lawsuit arise..."
SCO: "Haha! So you believe there should be lawsuits against Linux users!"
HP: "No, listen. We're saying that your claims..."
SCO: "HAHA! So you agree with our claims!"
HP: "Alright, listen you little..."
SCO: *fingers in ears* "I can't heeeeear you!"
I currently work at HP in the Enterprise Integration Department and this latest development does not surprise me.
The take that our department has is that Linux is well past the point where we have to worry about reliability. Our customers now ask for Linux support just in case they become disenchanted with Microsoft. We have about 350+ technicians who travel the US and Canada providing their expertise for Linux deployments in large organizations. HP never had a close relationship with Microsoft like Compaq did, and since we're on the driver's seat our ties with Microsoft are longer important.
Our next push is to deploy 64-bit server iron to most of the organizations while reducing the price of the 32-bit servers to half. What we intend to do is to convert the Win32 extension framework and recompile everything in gcc with the "-make64bit" flag. We have already re-compiled Word, Excel, Visio, Solitaire and Notepad. We're running into problems with Access and Microsoft Bob. The paperclip is at least twice as fast in Word 97.
Which is nice.
So if I offer my personal security services to young college girls who don't want to be raped, does that imply that the girls who DON'T hire me WANT to be raped?
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
"If there were no problem sin the Linux kernel, you'd indemnify your customers!"
"Ha! You had to indemnify your customers! There must be a problem in the Linux kernel!"
"See! You're running the Linux kernel on hardware! There must be a problem inthe Linux Kernel!"
Thomas Galvin
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.
You gotta appreciate the turnaround time though. I wish my mechanic was this quick..
This sentence clearly reeks of the "make the statement fit my argument even when it contradicts itself" mentality of SCO. They say that because HP is indemnifying that this is true:
"SCO claims HP is validating its claim that it owns at least some Linux code by doing this."
Which follows the recent, If (insert company name here) doesn't indemnify you, it validates that there is SCO code in Linux. Since if there wasn't, you would indemnify SCO. But if you do indemnify, then you are proving the same.
Sunny
Be my Friend
.....Bwwaaaahhhh!!! Hahahahaha!!...ummm.....bwaah ha ha!! No..seriously...my response is...coming...as soon as I....can stop.......BWWAAAHHAHAHAHA!
The probability that someone is watching you is directly proportional to the stupidity of your actions.
Since I have car insurance, does that mean I am admitting that I am a bad driver? No, it just means that I need to protect my own ass from various idiots and greedy a-holes (ie, SCO).
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
During our summer vacation this year, my wife and I amused ourselves by taking leisurely drives in Ohio and photographing every diamond-shaped highway sign that we saw along the roadsides. (Well, not every sign; only the distinct ones.) For provenance, I also stood at the base of each sign and measured its GPS coordinates.
This turned out to be even more fun than a scavenger hunt, so we filled in some gaps when we returned to California, thereby proving my theorum of indemnification to users who purchase Linux through HP, which can be found in LaTeX format on my website.
Sincerely,
Donald E. Knuth, Esq.
Donald E. Knuth, Professor Emeritus of The Art of Computer Programming at Stanford University
Yes, HP does agree that there are some serious issues here. Namely, that SCO is trying to shake HP's customers down for cash that SCO didn't earn and doesn't deserve. It's nice to see HP taking a stand against that.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
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.
This is a simple cost-benefit analysis by HP. The benefit? It might marginally increase its Linux sales by removing any fear, uncertainty or doubt from prospective customers. The cost? If SCO has nothing, then the cost is nothing.
Chances are your going to follow their list of recommended patches, etc. If they are your linux support vendor, it would make sense to run changes by them in case it voids your support contract.
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
[SCO] I'm going to stab you in the heart with this stick cause you may be cheating with my wife!
[HP] Buy and wear our armor chestplate and if they really do stab you you'll be protected.
[SCO] SEE!!! They have proven by you wearing their chestplate that you are banging my wife!
How do you arrive at this conclusion? It seems more likely that if HP is offering indemnity to their users they probably don't expect to have to pay anything. It just shows that they feel the FUD of SCO may be working to some extent, and want to ensure that people aren't afraid of buying HP products because of baseless claims made by SCO.
Too much talking about HP and SCO
time for comercial
Comercil
-- Hasbullah bin Pit (sebol)
...if you can't lock code under copyright anymore. It will have served its purpose.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
...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
Come on guys.. this article kinda sux.. can't we get a better funnier SCO of the DAY ARTICLE?
patiently waiting here for more SCO goodies..
I think it would be a nice gesture if you emailed HP to thank them for standing up to this crap. It's really nice of a company to actually support and back up their customers.
[sig]www.masterslate.org[/sig]
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.
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.
SCO representative Ima Loon pointed out that SCO had significantly more reports and comments then any other subject on /. except for Microsoft. "As we've previously shown with our big, big book of press clippings, the size and frequency of discussions concerning our company is the clearest indicator of the legitimacy of any legal claims that we are making." said Ima.
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.
...I'm afraid that others will follow in SCO's interpretation of HP's indemnification. :-(
Looks like HP is trying to milk the situation for what it's worth in short term profits and damn the consequences in the long run for Linux as a whole.
I found this quote from Fink rather revealing:
Fink used several marketing-type phrases about how SCO-proofing HP's Linux customers is, "differentiating ourselves from the market,"
They didn't think twice that maybe there is a little more at stake then getting a handful of customers to switch from IBM to HP.
bye, Chris
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.
if you'd have actually read the article before talking, you'd see that HP is only indemnifing users from actions by only SCO. noone else.
It's a dupe! It's a dupe I tell you! Twice on the same day! C'mon Slashdot!
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
Some will say this is a big cop-out for HP, and just a PR ploy, but although there are some limitations, it's a lot better than nothing, which is what Red Hat and SuSE offer...
Ironic that the book is written by SChOpenhauer. I'm sure SCO will sue him for having a derivative name, not to mention publishing SCOs *real* Intellectual Property...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
What I hope we don't see more of is the way that Sun use the indemnity issue to scare customers.
Sun have been suggesting that without indemnity SCO may come after you (which is nonsense). They have even gone as far as suggesting that SCO are right which is a truly disgusting way of coercing customers towards your product.
- Brian
>> SCO is correct. (Score:1)
>> by dnoyeb (547705) on Wednesday September 24, @02:25PM (#7046789)
>>(http://www.rigidsoftware.com/)
>>
>>SCO's interpretation is certainly correct
Sup Darl? Enjoying those fatties? Enjoy them while they last!
oh i get it...
SCO == FUCKED
all your kernel are belong to SCO.
What is slashdot?
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
...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.
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!
I was just thinking "now didn't SCO bad-mouth IBM a little while ago for not indemnifying their users if they truly believed there was no credence to SCO's claim and now SCO is saying that HP's move to indemnify their users is because HP believes their claim - that's some whacked logic there".
But did anybody else read the "Press Release" this way?
#
'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, is acknowledging that issues exist and is attempting to be responsive to its customers' request for relief. '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, 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 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, has done something about this.
Now that 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.
#
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I don't think this is correct. Think about what HP is saying. Martin Fink, HP's vice president of Linux says "If (customers) were to get sued by SCO, we would take over their defense and assume liability on their behalf."
Can anyone believe that HP would take over the defense of something they have serious doubts they can defend? Not only that, but assume liability. These are big time money numbers, considering SCO wants 3 billion dollars from IBM . If anything, it proves that they think this is a risk free offer,and excellent PR.
Unless there is some huge conspiracy between SCO and HP, this is just SCO putting their spin on damaging news.
Do you want the job done right, or do you want it done fast? - Homer Simpson
:)
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.
Darl: so, um. Ya. So we didn't try googling our code before we showed it in las vegas? Fuck off, McBride. I amazed crafty Darl would miss this obvious profit opportunity! Shhh! You are breaking my concentration! I'm trying to shed a bitter tear for them. Thanks, Darl - it's good to kick off the weekend with a good laugh...
This Comment was generated with the Comment-O-Matic for SCO Stories.
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.
Why don't they start bombing, say, SCO HQ? That would be a nice change of pace.
Oh sure, blowing up SCO would really strike fear in the hearts of Linux users everywhere. First rule of terrorism, never *help* the people you are trying to terrorize.
--
www.nitemarecafe.com
This is a delicate issue that we are NOT going to mess with.
Hmm. All it takes is some random unverified babblings of some company to drive you off? Even though there is no precedence for sueing end-user customers for copyright or patent infringement?
This is NOT a delicate issue. This is all very cut-and-dried. Although IANAL, I can find NO legal precedence for SCO's threat to sue end-users. They may be able to demand that people stop using Linux or pay a lincense fee, but not until they have proven in court there is copyright infringement.
And, oddly enough, the case they are taking to court has nothing to do with copyright infringement. It's a contract case, plain and simple. So we can continue to use Linux legally until such time as SCO proves that Linux code infringes their code; at that time, we can switch to another OS, or (more likely) use the "clean" code that will result from source-code cleansing that is sure to follow.
There's no delicacy here, just heavy-handed attempts at gouging unsuspecting/ignorant Linux users into paying up some "protection" money.
Unless your company distributes Linux, your company is in no danger.
But, then again, IANAL, so don't take this as legal advice. It's not.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
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.
That's some really SCO'ed up logic for you!
This looks like the same logic as: "We haven't found any WMD's in Iraq. This proves that they are hiding them".
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
But Red Hat's suit does not address the indemnification issues at all. The two are unrelated. Sure, the Red Hat suit is a high road, but it has no effect at all on the possible SCO fallout from using Red Hat products.
By sheer coincidence, I was looking at ProLiant servers on the HP website this weekend, and oddly enough, the only OS options they listed in the config for purchase drop down was Windows and NetWare (a bunch of variations of each).
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.
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.
Sorry if someone already posted this... I didn't see it in my skimming. It took me a while to find the exact press release, but here it is: http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1157 25
SCO Media Statement Re IBM Counterclaims
LINDON, Utah, Aug 07, 2003 -- We view IBM's counterclaim filing today as an effort to distract attention from its flawed Linux business model. It repeats the same unsubstantiated allegations made in Red Hat's filing earlier this week. If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL license. As the stakes continue to rise in the Linux battles, it becomes increasingly clear that the core issue is bigger than SCO (Nasdaq: SCOX), Red Hat, or even IBM. The core issue is about the value of intellectual property in an Internet age. In a strange alliance, IBM and the Free Software Foundation have lined up on the same side of this argument in support of the GPL. IBM urges its customers to use non- warranted, unprotected software. This software violates SCO's intellectual property rights in UNIX, and fails to give comfort to customers going forward in use of Linux. If IBM wants customers to accept the GPL risk, it should indemnify them against that risk. The continuing refusal to provide customer indemnification is IBM's truest measure of belief in its recently filed claims.
Regarding Patent Accusations
SCO has shipped these products for many years, in some cases for nearly two decades, and this is the first time that IBM has ever raised an issue about patent infringement in these products.
Furthermore, these claims were not raised in IBM's original answer.
SCO reiterates its position that it intends to defend its intellectual property rights. SCO will remain on course to require customers to license infringing Linux implementations as a condition of further use. This is the best and clearest course for customers to minimize Linux problems.
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
These guys are on drugs! Or is there something more basic wrong with them?
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.
When will SCO, and all of the other affected parties realize that press releases are not the same thing as email. They bicker back and forth in press release after press release, and everytime they do the media picks it up. I don't get it. It's like instead of talking to each other they just issue press releases and let the other side respond through their own press release to respond. Next thing you know SCO will issue a press release stating "Hp SuxorZ!!!W00T" And then HP will release one that says "No They dont you SuzorZ!!!" So then IBM will release one that's infected with a thought virus that kills anyone who reads it thusly killing all of the geeks who care, so that they won't have to issue (or read) anymore press releases. When will the madness end!
" SCO's interpretation is certainly correct"
No, its really not for a lot of reasons.
First of all, this indemnification is simply a form of insurance. If you think of it in those terms, if something is a sure thing, the cost of insurance is expensive, because the event will likely happen.
For example, if you want insurance against your dying someday, that will be expensive, because you (and everyone) will die someday.
On the other hand, insurance is cheap if the event won't happen. I'm willing to insure a business against any loss if aliens in flying saucers land and take earth women to mars. Its not gonna happen, so I'm willing to provide unlimited insurance for a small amount.
So lets look at HP insuring you against claims by SCO. If they felt this would likely happen, they would either have to charge their customers money, probably an amount they are likely to lose.
But if they feel the chances of SCO succeeding against customers is low, then the insurance will be cheap.
How much is SCO charging for this insurance?
Exactly.
So if they're charging $0 to indemnify against potentially $millions in damages, tell me what you think HP feels about this risk?
Or do you think HP is so desperate for customers for Linux that they're willing to bet the company on a wild gamble.
I doubt it.
I'd say SCO's press release smells of desperation; it means that they want to be mentioned in the press so desperately they drop a press release the way an elephant drops, er... well, you get the picture.
If you have an air-tight case against IBM, why so desperate for attention? Draw your own conclusions. It certainly doesn't look pretty for SCO at this point.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
I see sco is back at giving the computer industry as whole more laughs. I can't wait for this to be made in to a movie. Here hoping it's as funny as "Dumb and Dumber"
HP's and Sun's indemnification of Linux users who have purchased Linux from them is bad for open source. SCO is right: it acknowledges that SCO's claims are plausible.
Furthermore, it points the way by which companies could make open source software effectively proprietary: company A gets company B to make allegations and threaten lawsuits and then company A sells indemnifications. If company A plays their cards right, they come out looking OK, they don't run afoul of the GPL intellectual property provisions, yet they still can make money off the software when others can't as easily.
To me, these "indemnifications" from Sun and HP really amount to an insult of open source developers and an attack on the integrity of open source. The sooner Sun and HP stop this practice, the better.
SCO issued a strange press release
Does SCO really issue any other kind of press releases anymore?
Philip Sandifer's academic website
I think I finally understand what SCO is up to. They want to be in show business. They're writing a script for an episode of The Powerpuff Girls. Darl will be played by MojoJojo.
It all makes sense now.
HP's actions this morning reaffirm the fact that enterprise end users running Linux are exposed to legal risks.
/. instead of developing their code our guys may have a chance of bringing the piece of shit that we sell up to date so we can compete again.
HP has realised that it can bag a few orders from customers who are worried about SCO's Linux claims by indemnifying them without having to worry about paying up 'cos SCO have proved nothing.
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 don't believe that SCO will win because if they did they'd be stupid to write what could be a blank cheque as no-one knows what the settlement would be if SCO were to win.
HP's actions are driving the Linux industry towards a licensing program. In other words, Linux is not free.
And we've got so much proof of this, it's just that Darl left it on the train, er no, the dog chewed it up, er.... Darls relatives baby daughter spilt milk on it, er...... (Picks up phone) "Marketing? Can we have some more convincing ideas for bullshit please, they're still not swallowing it.
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.
Thank christ someone did somrthing that makes it look like we may have a leg to stand on. Hey Darl, keep praying. If you can ask God to get Torvalds to blurt out that he hypnotised someone at AT&T into giving him UNIX code we may win after all.
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.
Hell guys, lets threaten Linux users and companies again even though we said we wouldn't be chasing them a few weeks back. I mean it makes sense changing your claims and threats every day to stop those with short attention spans from getting bored. Also, If we can get all the Open Source coders spending their time writing open letters to us and posting on
As a company that strongly supports its customers, HP has done something about this.
As above, HP has realised they get business from a few extra companies that are worried about our claims with minimal risk of having to pay out because they don't believe us.
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.
Even though we still have provided no proof whatsoever that our claims are true, the entire Open Source community hates us and we're dumping our stock like there's no tomorrow i.e. a sure sign that we are not expecting the value of our company to rocket in the long term as it would if we were to win against IBM.
We think their customers will demand it.
Fuck off you twat! I am a Linux customer, and I know quite a few other Linux customers and none of them demand indemnification against, or licences from SCO. The heads of the SCO execs on plates maybe but not licences or indemnification.
Thought for the day:
If all the proven factual evidence presented so far by SCO were laid end to end, you'd have just enough paper for a Hamster to wipe it's arse with.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
It's the kind of thinking one associats with HP.
But there is a major flaw in your plan. Fiorina. She's mad I tell you!
-pyrrho
Obviously, I meant "how much is HP" charging.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Well, at least wall street doesn't feel that this helps SCO: This is the first time that I've seen a /. story on them and their stock price actually is down 10% for the day.
That's right, there is no defense against our clams! Go forth, unholy army of shellfish, and do our bidding!
(sorry)
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
I am not a lawyer, and I don't even play one here at Slashdot... But I'm not sure how "indemnification" weakens Red Hat's case. Such policies generally only say that if SCO sues you for using Brand X Linux product, Company X will back you up because SCO's claim is baseless. At least, that's how I read it. I really don't think it's an admission of anything, unless you are buying SCO's response to the HP indemnification policy, which is clearly more SCO FUD (are SCO and FUD synonyms?)
Now let's look at SCO's claims:
1) "If IBM really feels there are no issues with Linux IP, they would offer to indemnify their customers."
2) "The fact that HP has offered to indemnify their customers proves their must be issues with Linux IP!"
Uh, you can't have it BOTH ways Darl... which is it?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
They present it as HP saying "We might have screwed up and have some SCO code in Linux. Of course, we don't want any of our customers to be held liable for our mistake, so we're willing to take the beating for this, indemnifying our users."
In fact, if that had been the case, it might not be such a bad business move. I imagine the next thing that would have happened if any HP customers were to be held liable, would be to sue HP for the same amount or more for giving it to them, so HP might as well take over their case to begin with.
The spin is good, I doubt anyone who has already "decided" how this case will go will change opinion over it. It all depends on whether you truly belive there is SCO code in Linux.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
TROLL!!! -- No sig required/deisred...
In the normal course of business, one stands behind one's product by offering an indemnification. In the open source context, HP (but not necessarily Sun, given their relatioship with SCO) is sending a message that it believes that the risk of there ultimately being a problem is lower than the losses it will suffer if its customers don't trust Linux. As a business, the only way that analysis makes sense is if one believes in the integrity of open source.
I shouldn't really say that SCO is wrong; they had it right the first time: if you believe in the product you are selling, and if you believe there isn't a problem with a type of claim, you indemnify. H-P believes.
IAAL,BIANYL
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
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
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]
I'm going to file a patent on a new business model: Indemnfying and insuring people agaoinst completely impossible liablities and accidents.
There are some inherent problems with this: What is impossible today might be possible somethime in the future. If I, for example, offer indemnification from all lawsuits brought by bisexual Smurfs, an alien race called "Smurfs" might be discovered in the future. One possible solution to this would be to just indemnify people from lawsuits brought by bisexual Smurfs in the Jurasic age, without the use of a time machine.
The second problem is that most people won't see bisexual Smurfs as a possility. The solution to this is a massive FUD campaign about how bisexual Smurfs are terribly offended by breathing, drinking, eating, [insert something that people do every day]. This FUD will create the demand for indemnifications.
All we need is a PayPal account, and a license to operate as an insurance agency.
I'm going to let people utilize my patented business model for a 30% cut of gross income.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
Rich
This message resonates with PHBs who care more about contracts than quality.
SCO's ridiculous claims, by not being answered, are implicitly validated.
This message resonates with PHBs who care more about controversy than quality.
SCO's ridiculous claims, by being answered, have been dignified thereby.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
which one? the one where they claimed that IBM's refusal to offer indemnification confirms their claims or the one where HP's indemification confirms their claims
logic is hard, isn't it?
It's becoming clear to me that SCO really wants *nix users to pay for an OS and apps. If they are losing market share and revinue because linux is free, then perhaps what they want is to eliminate free operating systems, so that they will have something to compete against. As an example, sometimes, at my school, one group or another will give away free food. This causes the sales in the cafeteria to drop to almost nothing. On the other hand, when a group has a 'revinue drive' and sells food, even at a low cost, the cafeteria still has fair amount of sales. this is because free food is, well, FREE. And when there is a cost associated with the food, then people use judgement and apply personal preferences. This may be the ultimate aim of the SCO lawsuit.
The difference is that Sun did not admit to paying SCO money until the deals started coming out in SCO's 10-Q filings. Sun didn't step up and say "why, yes, we bought some drivers, no big deal". Sun acted as if they had finished their business with SCO a long time ago.
:)
See, for instance:
McNealy weighs in on Linux, Unix, Sun
I don't know what I would buy there [SCO]. Why buy what you already own? I thought I already paid for that sucker.
That's Scott McNealy failing to see your distinction between a Unix source license and a license for new drivers. That's Scott McNealy hiding the SCO relationship until he's forced to admit it.
Project UDI? Come on. They haven't updated their reference implementation since September 2001. You think Sun paid $7.5 million (and counting) for that crap? You think you can convince anyone else that Sun paid $7.5 million for that crap?
Speaking of going down the tubes, Red Hat has increasing revenues and is profitable; Sun has declining revenues and isn't profitable. That's gotta hurt.
Linux is eating away at Sun's market from below. Sun is going the way of Cray, where fewer and fewer and customers need the high-end machines which Sun has and Linux doesn't. It's not just the end of the dot-com bubble. It's the permanent shrinkage of Sun's core market.
Sun's customers know this. Sun knows this. That's why Sun supports SCO, and that's why SUN is taking the reputational hit for supporting SCO.
There is no surprise here. Do you know
anything else SCO is doing for a living
besides PR?
Yes, as a matter of fact, they seem to have a business plan that is based upon filing lawsuits and pumping and dumping their own stock. Last I checked, they have yet to make any money purely off their PR ventures, but are doing quite well at pumping and dumping stock, at least on an individual basis.
Reminds me of Homer Simpson (doesn't everything?) when he invested in "pumpkin futures" in October, and was sure that they were going to continue to rise through January...
Its not just a matter of how low you buy, but how high you sell.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!