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?
"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.
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!"
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..
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
[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!
...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.
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.
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
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!
Does Eric Raymond's gaurded comments since releasing Comparator indicate that the results were not favorable????
I don't think so. MD5 conparisons are good for finding exact matches not partial matches as would be used in a derivative/obsucated claim so I'm not sure his program would find all of what SCO is claiming. I don't know the details of how his program works but knowing the problem space it would take some time to run a comparison against copied snippets within a file since it would involve splitting up the file many different ways and comparing all of these chunks agains chunks of another source tree split up and MD5'd in a similar fassion. So to confirm a negative requires a lot of caution and due diligence to avoid getting egg on the face.
More importantly his program may find matches and each of those matches must then be researched to determine the source of the IP. Remember code can be indentical and still legal. So needing to do all the legal research required to validate each similarity as legal or not would take some time. I think any assumptions on what may or may not be found by Comparator is a bit premature given all the work needed to produce a meaningful conclusion. If Raymond simply threw out a number like "Comparator only found 2% similarity between code bases" he'd be just as guilty of FUD slinging as Mr. McBride claim that millions of lines of SYS V code match linux 2.4 kernal code.
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
"I'm at work and don't have the time to research a link. Anyone care to find this?"
;)
Yes, I care, but I don't have the time, as I am at home; reasons vary...
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.