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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
[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!
...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
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 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.
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
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
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!
:)
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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!