Slashdot Mirror
Novell Offers Linux Users Legal Indemnity
Anonymous Coward writes "Novell today said it intends to indemnify its enterprise Linux users against possible legal action by The SCO Group and/or others. According to eWeek Novell's new Linux Indemnification Program is designed to provide its SUSE Enterprise Linux customers with protection against intellectual-property challenges to Linux and to help reduce the barriers to Linux adoption in the enterprise.
Under the terms of the program, Novell will offer indemnification for copyright infringement claims made by third parties against registered Novell customers who obtain SUSE Enterprise Linux 8 after January 13, 2004, upgrade protection and a qualifying technical support contract from Novell or a Novell channel partner."
Novell is using this as a chance to get support contracts thrown in with this protection?
And what if I decide to find my infamy in being non compliant?
EOU
Actually, I read this on SLASHDOT a few hours ago.
What are the odds of McBride and co. actually winning a lawsuit against Linux users, especially with IBM and the geek community firmly entrenched against SCO?
The indemnification idea is a last resort.
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
The promise is only about new SUSE support subscribers.
Warning: This sig contains a small bug. ==> *
take that and shove it Darl!
Yes there was a story a few hours ago about IBM and Intel offering some sort of indemnity, which SCO criticized. This story covers Novell.
If you claim that a few hours' delay is unacceptable, consider that the legal system typically doesn't move nearly as fast as technology.
They're like a virus.
Let me guess:
Novell's trying to cash in on SCO's bad manners!
Well, you can't indemnify someone without contract of some sort, and buying and installign software with a EULA that has that clause would be a good way to do it.
But in all fairness I officially downgrade Novell from an alert level of Double Plus Good to Plus Good. The SCO alert level remains fixed at Double Plus Ungood. Verner's is still tasty. Further news as events warrant.
-Adam
WHYY?! This is stupid.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Oh give me a break. So if you're not the first group to break a story you are rehashing it? Aren't all news outlets guilty of that? If a news site only put out news that no one else had covered already, you'd have to visit every single news site to get the most up to date coverage. No, Slashdot doesn't report a lot of things before other people do; that's not its purpose. Its purpose is to be a news site that reports on the most relevant stuff for nerds, and offer those same nerds a place to voice their concerns among one another, or just general rant and rave. It does this good, do stop your bitching. No one's making you come here you know?
Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
so it starts January 13th? otherwise you have to buy an 'upgrade package'?
they're just trying to make a sale. It would be better if they offered this protection to all of their customers, rather than forcing companies to buy an 'upgrade', that will most likely prove worthless anyhow,
'When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.' -HST
Jeez, at some point, do you think that M$ dirty tactics will hurt it in that realm of enterprise business where handshakes still matter?
This is my sig.
Under the terms of the program, Novell will offer indemnification for copyright infringement claims made by third parties against registered Novell customers who obtain SuSE Enterprise Linux 8 after January 13, 2004, upgrade protection and a qualifying technical support contract from Novell or a Novell channel partner
...
In other words, Novell bought any old Linux distro to make money out of people's fears of SCO (or rathe, fear of having to deal with the SCO annoyance). Some surprise
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
If any one company provides security directly, it means all linux versions are safe to purchase. Isn't it?
I could change the world, but GOD won't give me the source code
Correct if I am wrong, but doesn't such an action just legitimize the claims of the SCO group? Or, does it just mean that in the unlikely even that SCO actually win this lawsuit that Novell will absorb the costs of it's customers Linux deployments, as far as liscensing?
Novell to Offer Linux Indemnification Program
By Peter Galli
January 12, 2004
Novell Inc. has decided to follow Hewlett-Packard Co.'s lead and indemnify its enterprise Linux customers against possible legal action by The SCO Group and/or others.
Novell is expected to announce its Linux Indemnification Program late on Monday, sources close to the company told eWEEK. A Novell spokesman would not confirm this, adding that the company does not comment on speculation.
The new indemnification program is designed to provide its SuSE Enterprise Linux customers with protection against intellectual-property challenges to Linux and to help reduce the barriers to Linux adoption in the enterprise.
Under the terms of the program, Novell will offer indemnification for copyright infringement claims made by third parties against registered Novell customers who obtain SuSE Enterprise Linux 8 after January 13, 2004, upgrade protection and a qualifying technical support contract from Novell or a Novell channel partner.
Customers will also have to accept the program terms and conditions, including caps and other limitations imposed, the sources said.
Novell is also planning a program for those enterprise Linux users who are not currently Novell SuSE Linux users. The program, which will be announced later, will help them become Novell SuSE Linux customers and qualify for the indemnification.
Novell's Linux indemnification move follows its recent acquisitions of open source developer Ximian Inc. and SuSE Linux. Novell announced in August that it had acquired Ximian and in November said it had offered to buy SuSE Linux for $210 million.
Novell executives are also expected to announce on Monday that the SuSE deal has been completed. That will mean that SuSE's Linux distributions join the Novell family of products and allow Novell to offer customers a complete Linux-solution stack and global technical Linux support.
The company's indemnification move today also follows that of HP, which in September announced that it would indemnify its customers against any legal liability from the use of Linux.
Click here to read more about Hewlett-Packard's Linux indemnification program.
At that time Martin Fink, a vice president at Palo Alto, Calif.-based Hewlett-Packard, said the company would indemnify new customers who buy Linux from HP, agree not to make unauthorized changes to the source code and sign a standard support contract.
The need to indemnify enterprise Linux users follows legal action by SCO against IBM for allegedly incorporating parts of proprietary Unix code into Linux. SCO holds the rights to Unix.
In November, SCO CEO Darl McBride threatened to sue enterprise Linux users within 90 days for copyright infringement.
Novell executives are also on Monday expected to release additional information on the contractual and intellectual property rights it holds because of its former ownership of Unix and UnixWare.
To read more about Novell's claims to Unix, click here.
The company is expected to announce that it has the rights to license Unix technology pursuant to a Technology License Agreement between SCO and Novell, including Novell's right to authorize its customers to use that Unix technology in their internal business operations.
It also claims to have the rights to take action on behalf of SCO under legacy Unix SVRX licenses pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement between SCO and Novell.
smart move, even though it's a bit of a gamble (much as you guys like to assume it's a sure thing that SCO is going to outright lose this.. YNAFL - you're not all frikken lawyers, you know.
So here they are, one of the few vendors offering indemnity in this time of uncertainty, ripe market eh? And they get contracts out of this, so even if they get screwed, they'll have this cash to fall back on. Nice.
Sure why not. What SCO's chances of winning past IBM, Redhat and the rest to actually sue a SUSE user? Isn't think like selling "The Moon landing on your head" insurance?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
We shouldn't celebrate just because indemnification is available and say it solves the problem. That SCO has created demand for such indemnification is already a big problem. And of course companies offering indemnification have a vested interest in creating more such demand. They're not doing anything bad by offering it, but neither is it completely in the interests of free software for everyone to jump on it. It's more complicated than that and we have to keep the issues clear.
what the hell are you talking about?
That everyone now is using SCO to cash in a little. No doubt Novell, IBM et al have made these funds knowing full well that SCO will never see any of that money because they will never really challenge anyone in court if they can help it.
Meanwhile, these companies get free good publicity.
So now Novelle is offering indemnity to theur Linux customers? What next a colony on the moon?
Am I wrong, or would 95% of each $699 SCO license fee go to Novell, since they retain ownership of Sys V UNIX?
Theres something fishy going on with SCO and Novell, with Novell coming out of this smelling like roses - I have to wonder if this whole SCO sham is simply a way to boost Novell's image as ' a good guy' at the expense of a company that was insignificant and dying anyway (SCO).
Anyone else finding it difficult to understand these dealings?
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
No, really, I'm serious!!
If so will not this issue be dieing soon..?
( assuming they really do not have a claim )
Steve
Meant "indemnified", not "identified" in above message. Doh.
oh hush up will you, you're not funny.
You gotta love how Forbes always get it wrong. This Forbes article by Reed Stevenson
quotes
SCO also warned companies that they must pay to use Linux, which is based on the proprietary Unix operating system, or face litigation.
Emphasis mine of course.
Where does Forbes hire their journalist from? The local high school.
IBM and Intel (as part of OSDN) offered 10 million dollars for use by end users for legal expenses. That's not indemnification. Indemnification is taking liability for another party and is something businesses don't like to do and is not really relevent since end users wouldn't have liability from simply running Linux unless they had patent infringing code in the kernel -- and SCO only own one patent, and that is not even relevent to the IBM lawsuit.
CO: No one will indemnify users against us because they know that we're right! There's no defense against our cliams! later... SCO: Novell is indemnifying users against us because they know we're right! So, let me get this straight... According to SCO, Novell 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!
I would assume the security changes will get folded into the next version of the kernel, so yes, of course.
True story.
Got Linux = Tux Lingo
So I Teach - I Hate SCO
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
Nearly all the posts on Slashdot so far point to Novell and say that they're trying to cash in on SCO.
While it seems that Novell is feeding the fear of users, they're really not. It simply says that Novell is willing to spend big $$$ in legal fees to fend off SCO just as IBM is. However, they are doing this volentarily in order to make extra sales. This helps Linux/open source. Notice that they are not charging extra ($600) for this service.
Think of SCO as the terrorists of Linux. Novell is offering protection, just as if some airline started carrying on board guards. Whether or not you think it's useful, its there for those companies who are not buying into Linux because of SCO's allegations.
What about the money from Bill Gates that comes via his wife's roundabout purchases of SCO stock which SCO insiders are selling ?
If indemnification makes people more likely to adopt open source software in the short term, it is a good thing. Yes, it will suck for smaller software companies that can not afford indemnification, but as more companies realize that open source is not as scary as Microsoft wants them to believe, its usage will pick up dramatically. For large companies, the savings in software licensing fees could pay for all the legal representation they need to defend their open source usage and distribution. Once the SCO case falls apart and potential copycats realize that extorting money out of free software users is harder than it appeared at first, such lawsuits, along with the fear of being sued, will drop off.
It's as risky as...well...eating a melon with a spoon.
----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
If you have had a hand in development of Unix, now own suse and know probably where most of the source code came from in unix (development history too).. wouldnt you make this move and hopefully cash in on some sales.
People might see that Novell have been part of unix development, add that to the current copyright dispute with SCO and that Novell do have some rights. This could swing it for those companies wanting to use linux but dont want the risk. They might go with suse now, get some legal protection and have the perception that novell knows SCO's claims are utter BS and have now covered you from any lawsuit SCO may or may not file.
Just a thought.
Wow. I smell a great conspiracy theory here. SCO's actually the puppet of Novell etc, to get businesses to buy Linux distros from vendors who will indemnify them from the big bully SCO.
I'd discuss my theory more, but I just heard a click on my telephone line and that sounds like a black helicopter nearing the house!
Please help metamoderate.
If you post again like that, say, a dozen times more, you'll lose your +2 bonus and you'll drop below my threshold. Please continue ...
Looks like SCO got their wish.... wonder what their FUD tomorrow will be.
is anywon surprised?
I don't think this is the end of the world. While I, too, would love to live in a perfect world, sometimes extra protection is a nice "feature" that comes bundled with the product.
Also, keep in mind this does not affect Linux users, per se. It affects Novell customers. There's a great deal of overlap, to be sure, but I think it's a company's right to take the extra step to protect customers from legal B.S. like this.
Unfortunate this has to happen? Maybe. Indemnification (I think) usually involves contracts, agreed to by both parties (like one company buying another company's product), so it really doesn't affect the license issue.
--- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
With Novell supporting SCO, do they have a case? What about those who said that SCO was screwed and it was only a matter of time until they went bankrupt?
litigous bastards
if you read the last SCO story today, you'd understand the purpose of the above link. You could also try "miserable failure" for a small hint.
We shouldn't celebrate just because indemnification is available and say it solves the problem.
I don't think we need to look at this situation in that particular light...
SCO tried going off on yet another FUD tangent (presumeably since as of today, their legal case should cease to exist) by pointing the finger at various Linux-related companies, asking why, if so confident in SCO's lack of a case, they didn't offer to indemnify their clients.
Novel has yet again spiked the ball back, and taken up SCO's challenge.
IMO, the entire situation has gone from legal harassment to playground pissing-contests. "You sound sooooo sure your dog can beat up my dog, why won't you bet on it, you little pussy?". Nothing more, nothing less. In this case, Novel responded by tossing in a quarter and letting its rottweiler off the leash to play with SCO's toy poodle.
It is not that Novell suddenly decided to indemnify because of FUD. If you read the article, it says that Novell expects to complete its purchase of SUSE Linux today. If Novell did not own SUSE earlier, it could not have offered the indemnity.
"Novell executives are also expected to announce on Monday that the SuSE deal has been completed. That will mean that SuSE's Linux distributions join the Novell family of products and allow Novell to offer customers a complete Linux-solution stack and global technical Linux support."
However, I understand your concern for the FUD maybe becoming successful, and maybe one of the reasons for indemnity.
So, dish it to me if I'm wrong, but all this is a bead bargain: Novel offering indemnity to those who *upgrade* for their supported SuSE package.
/. community just accept this without crying foul. If only for support of a kindred spirit as Novell who is no new comer to the *nix sector. Granted, they should indemnify all SuSE users, in a pefect world... but this is not the SIMS, this is the dark scary world of legalese and double talk. A battered and insecure corp such as Novell could do far worse here.
While on the face, I can say this snubs the homebrew community, it does make practical business sense... to a very narrow degree... assuming that Marketing accounts for the Enterprise to heed their offer first while the homebrew crowd trickles in over the next 12 months.
I suggest the
It was all a conspiracy to sell support contracts :)
736, line 234)? Gengar56: depends on
Since SCO is essentially a sublicensee of Unix from Novell, then if SCO wins, Novell pays itself, minus a small cut to SCO. Sounds pretty much win-win for Novell to me...
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Why do you say that? If they think they're asking for lawsuits unless they write some company a check for every copy of the program they use, how is it different from using proprietary software?
What's you point?
I think understanding this whole IBM / Novel thing from a business perspective, it is inescapable that we are asked to choose the lesser of two evils, but at least in this case the decision is not a hard one. Keep in mind that IBM and Novel are not really friends of Open Source unless it benefits them in a business sense. This does not mean we should not support them in this case, because it benefits us too. But just keep in mind, down the road they may bite us.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
must be laughable. Why else would there be all these indemnification announcements today? I figure Novell knows some things we don't (yet). I'm looking forward to the end of SCO.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
SCO has been saying for quite a while that companies should indemnify their users if everything thinks that SCO doesn't really have a case. Novell did it, albeit with some catches, which I think are completely reasonable. While Novell has been lauded as of late as the good guy (which I still think they are), it's important to remember that they are still a business, just spent a whole lot of money buying Ximian and SuSE and need to make money to keep going. Yeah - Linux is "free" and all that, but when a company like Novell puts their support behind it, there IS going to be a cost.
They have now missed over a dozen opportunities to do something very stupid! Has someone removed the alien face huggers there or what is happening here?
This would have never happened with the old Novell we all loved to loathe.
I find this deeply disturbing. Stupidity does not simply go away just like that. Where is my tinfoil hat again?
"Under the terms of the program, Novell will offer indemnification for copyright infringement claims made by third parties against registered Novell customers who obtain SUSE Enterprise Linux 8 after January 13, 2004"
What about other forms of indemnification. Copyright infringement is SCO's decoy. They will go after Linux companies and users for unfair business practices, which is a lot more likely to succeed. Their only case now against IBM has little to do with copyright infringement, for instance.
I am not in the legal field and have a question. If a company such as SUSE did in fact infringe upon the itellectual copyright of SCO, is it legally possible to take the users of the software to court? If I went out and purchased a CD package of SUSE and I am not able to decipher the actual code, would I have enough knowledge to determine if parts of it were obtained in a questionable matter? Something like this would hold strong in most courts (IMHO). With out prior knowledge of any wrong doing, I don't think one would need any form of indemnity to help protect them. This site itself is a great example, I know somebody had to write the code that creates these pages but how would we know if the code was made from bits of other sources that is copyrighted intellectual property?
Can anyone shed a little light on this for me?
Why is everyone attacking Novell for this? Why are you all claiming they are in bed with SCO for offering enterprise customers what we have been asking for?
I can only speak for my large enterprise (Fortune 50, 70,000+ employees, billons of US$ in revenue, etc.), but our biggest obstacle to buying Linux was our legal department, demanding "I can get indemnity from everyone else, why can't someone offer me indemntiy for Linux?"
Large organizations (particularly ones that have large sums of other people's money to protect) only have one issue here - it's not open source politics, it's not SCO's pump and dump, and it's not who's right or wrong - it's risk mitigation. It's a question of how much money are we going to lose if SCO is right, and who is going to protect us from this?
I, for one, am glad to see Novell offering the opportunity for real Linux indemnity - goodness knows, I've asked everyone in the industry for it.
"Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things."
It is a short link but it says a lot.
It's possible that they're just not comfortable guaranteeing the legality of code prior to this release because they haven't reviewed it. Just a thought.
Right now, I would do an incredibly happy little dance.
Then I'd wait six months for the SCO thing to blow over.
Then I'd sue, for tiny, legally incoherent reasons, a large quantity of different Novell linux customers. The reasons would be randomly selected, and different in each case, and occationally perhaps be pumped through shell companies. But Novell, having offered legal indemnification, would have to research and respond to each one at great cost on its customers behalf. Then I'd just sit back, attempt to stall these cases as long as possible, and quietly drop every single one just before it actually got into a courtroom.
I'd piss money down the drain by doing so, but hey, I'd force Novell to piss as much or more away in the process-- and since I'd be Microsoft, I'd be able to afford this. Possibly to the point where Novell would take serious damage without me having to break a sweat. Meanwhile, Novell's Linux customers would inevitably be a bit spooked by this, and some number would ask Novell if they could use one of Novell's linux-free, more antiquated alternate products instead.
MS might not do this, and it might not really be something that is realistic from their viewpoint (since someone might notice them perofrming widespread abuse of the legal system, which might get them the dreaded 'vextatious litigant' label). But if you don't think that it's something they'd be WILLING to do, then you probably also believe that line about "It doesn't MATTER if the Xbox is staggeringly unprofitable! This isn't a trust-like, illegal, or maliciously anticompetitive action! They're just taking the sound business strategy of taking massive losses now so that someday later, the XBox-3 can be somewhat profitable (or perhaps the XBox-4)!"
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)
.. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
I think his main point, and I would agree, is that indemnification is only a short term solution to a short term problem. Once all this played out with SCO in court, indemnification will not be needed. If a company has enough faith that SCO is wrong, it is worth the risk to them for "insurance" policy to gain new customers. If the support contract isn't a good value by itself, then the temporary freebee of an indemnification clause will make little difference in their sales.
Obviously to any group that is not profit group distributing Linux (Debian, etc.) indemnification is not possible, but most people who use Debian aren't buying support contracts from anyone, at any price. Most Debian (or Gentoo, or Slackware...) users are more aware of the problem, and feel confident that SCO can't win because they have no claim. Its also a different culture, with a bigger focus on "free as in speech/beer", rather than "how will this generate profits and create jobs to grow the business" concerns.
Corporate users are different because decisions are made by committee, not a single hacker, and done for the benefit of shareholders, employees, managers and customers. They have entire departments for IT, and they are more interested in running stable, reliable, supported networks than cutting edge. The needs, culture and expectations are just different.
I have used RedHat for several years, and paid for the support, on a few servers. Their recent policies are forcing me to consider changing vendors. Indemnification alone would not get me to switch, but I can see how it is a benefit on alongside SuSe, a very popular corporate distro, and one that I am considering. If its "icing on the cake" and SuSe puts out the best _product_, and they are honest in how they market indemnification, then I see this as a good move to push Linux in the mainstream, by removing barriers in the marketplace, ie: concern over the future of Linux.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Sheesh, the slashdot summary even mentions this point. I don't think you're really being insightful. I guess the idea is that they want to prevent their revenue base from shrinking. If you've already payed them for they're product, why would they want to provide you with additional indemnification protection for nothing.
Preventing this sort of case is exactly the reason why RMS created GNU/FSF.
C|N>K
Selling SCO insurance? I don't mean giving it away, I mean selling it for around $50. If I were novell I would do something like...
1. Offer indemnification for new customers
2. Offer an upgrade for old customers
3. Wait until the SCO case falls through
4. Profit
5. Get nailed by a Class action law suit
6. ???
7. Profit some more.
Quick, you can still buy a some here!
I was thinking today... Couldn't... say... microsoft, or SCO, or anyone else submit some code as if it were written by a guy named jim bob from timbuktu into the linux kernel, and upon the code being incorporated into the kernel, then sue the open source community (and/or the business's that rely upon them), for stealing the intellectual property even though the open source community had no idea they had accidentally "stolen" the intellectual property by incorporating "billy bob msft's" code into the kernel? It seems that by certain channels that it would be really easy for SCO to get some of their code into the kernel and then prove it was there without the knowledge of anyone in the open source development teams knowing it's there. I mean, if you don't have atnt's old proprietary code before it was compiled, or any other software companies source code... how can you compare it to make sure the source code didn't come from a corporation who owns the intellectual property? How do you guys defend against such things? I am all for stallman-esque free as in beer software, but this occurred to me, and I thought, perhaps the gpl is inherantly flawed... and could be easily sabotaged in this way. I know my question is not one that has not already occurred to a million people, but I am confused by it, and hoped I would find a hopeful answer.
Novel has fought SCOs effort to go after Linux from the start.
SCO clames full ownership of Unix based on that one would presume SCO isn't paying Novel roialtys or if they are they plan to find a reason to stop.
Novel has resisted SCOs efforts from the start and has made it pritty clear they don't support SCO.
If it looks like a Penquin, walks like a Penquin and Squaks like a Penquin it's not a duck.
I don't actually exist.
I had a question regarding "derivative works" and googled "Xenix". Here's what I found:
Xenix
(Redirected from XENIX)
Xenix was Microsoft's version of UNIX for microprocessors. Microsoft called it Xenix because it could not license the "UNIX" name.
Microsoft purchased a license for UNIX 7th Edition from AT&T in 1979, and announced on August 25, 1980 that it would make it available for the 16-bit microcomputer market. Xenix was not sold directly to end users; Microsoft licensed it to computer manufacturers who then ported it to their systems. The first ports of Xenix were to the Zilog Z8001 16-bit processor.
Altos shipped a version for their computers early in 1982, Tandy Corporation shipped one for their 68000-based systems in January 1983, and Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) released their port to the Intel 8086 processor in September 1983.
Xenix varied from its 7th Edition origins by incoporating elements from BSD, and soon possessed the most widely installed base of any Unix flavor due to the popularity of the inexpensive x86 processor, even though the port created for Tandy computers proved to be more robust.
When Microsoft entered into an agreement with IBM to develop OS/2, it lost interest in promoting Xenix. Microsoft transferred ownership of Xenix to SCO in an agreement that left Microsoft owning 25% of SCO. However, Microsoft continued to use Xenix internally, submitting a patch to support functionality in UNIX to AT&T in 1987, which trickled down to the code base of both Xenix and SCO UNIX. Microsoft is said to have used Xenix on VAX minicomputers extensively within their company as late as 1992.
SCO released a version of Xenix for the Intel 286 processor in 1985, and following their port of Xenix to the 386 processor, a 32-bit chip, renamed it SCO UNIX.
What if......
INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';
Please, go on. You'll lose your karma and I'll never have to see you again. Thx!
The fact that stuff like this is even being considered shows that SCO's tactics are working, and that is not a good thing. Think about it, companies would not take steps like this unless they thought there was a credible threat to Linux. Everyone on Slashdot knows that SCO's claims are such utter bullshit they stand no chance of ever prevailing in a court of law. To the average Joe however, SCO might own half the Linux kernel. Heck look at the "experts" on Wall Street. We've seen it before though. Keep up a constant drumbeat of lies in the press and people will believe it.
In a larger context, this is just one of the symptoms of the copyright witchhunt of the past few years. The RIAA, MPAA, etc. have attempted to curtail freedoms in media by publishing absurdly inflated loss figures due to unauthorized use and threatening legal action to those who don't use media exactly the way they want. Now SCO threatens to bring the same restrictions to open source software by scaring people with even more ridiculous claims than the media giants and shoving "PIRACY!!!" down everyone's throat.
The only way this is going to stop is to educate more people on why SCO poses no real challenge to Linux and has no right to any of its components. And instead of continually putting out a deluge of SCO press releases, the major media outlets need to play a little more fairly and let the other side speak a little louder.
-You may license this sig for only $6.99.
An organization like Debian can't itself offer indemnification, but perhaps it could work with an insurance policy to offer indemnity policies to people wanting to buy them. However, the closest to a real solution would be for Darl and company to see jail time and dissuade others from running similar scams. But it just isn't likely.
Or maybe the fact that Novell does not acquire SuSe before 13'th Might have something to do with it. DUH!
The indemnification program will go into effect on Tuesday, the same day that Novell is expected to complete its $210 million acquisition of the German software company
Help fight continental drift.
...since Novell still claims to be the copyright holder, doesn't that mean that *they* would get the money from any *copyright* lawsuit? Remember that the IBM case is all about breach of contract, not copyright. There is no "SCO IP" case. They've never filed for one. The only case they've filed is against IBM putting IBMs IP in SCO, in breach of a *contract* with SCO.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It says go ahead and implement Linux at your site. We (the open source community) think these charges are *so* baseless, we'll pay for your defense.
At the corporate SuSE, level just state that SCO has no case. Be honest and state again why SCO has no case. Why are you grabbing for bucks with this non-sense. If there is no violation, then there is nothing to indemnify in SuSE Linux (speaking as a programmer from a company that just did 5 SuSE 9.0 purchases/installs within two weeks). As a SuSE buyer (I didn't say downloader) since 6.4, why are you not concered about the end user? Are you stating that SCO is correct?
If you want to indemnify customers, how about a notice that states Novell/SuSE will be around for the long term. You will not go against Microsoft, but aim for interoperability. How about a statement that says we will provide an end user solution (Me) as well as a verticle Enterprise one (Me again with clients).
Nullprog,
It's just the normal noises in here.
It says go ahead and implement Linux at your site. We (the open source community) think these charges are *so* baseless, we'll pay for your defense. 123123
ones ane egg is peeled it is no longer a seed of growth
Anyone that offers guarantees of this sort is not particularly worthy of respect, IMO.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
here ya go Melinda Gates connection to SCO. Courtesy of GrokLaw
Hey Darl, stick this in your pipe and smoke it!
Am I missing something? SCO is more or less a spin off of Novell (from when they sued M$ for DOS) at that point Novell split off Caldara, which in turn became SCO... this is just odd.
On the surface it would appear that McBride has no case, hence the seemingly desperate protests, accusations and wild statements. However, I fear that the Unix world is falling right into the hands of Microsoft. While everyone believes that SCO has limited funds to fight these legal battles, in, fact they have unlimited funds thanks to Microsoft. So first they put IBM in their sights, then Novell and HP, suckering each into a bold stand out on a limb, then wham! they hit them with some heretherto unknown evidence and they're all in trouble. Obviously it's a worst case scenario, but it's the one I fear the most.
Noise + Protection = Protection Racket
Seriously though, they may be doing a good thing here, but I can't help note the Mafi-esque style in play here.....
Anyone up for compiling a conspiracy theory or two?
it's the taking apart that counts
Novell's move will turn out to be either brilliant or incredibly stupid. They will either get the jump on migration to Linux by small and medium enterprises, or they make themselves very vulnerable to litigation if SCO prevails. But they are calling SCO's bluff of "if we're wrong, how come nobody is indemnifying their customers?" Call me a karma whore, but I admire their chutzpah.
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
The worst thing about these indemnification agreements is that they are conditioned on waiving the freedoms intrinsic to the software. You can have your free software, but you're not free to modify it.
How do you figure that?
You're still free to modify the software, but it would be patently unreasonable to ask someone else to cover your butt if you make changes or implement changes other than those that the indemnifier would provide.
You can still get under the hood and add the nitrous, but you can't sue Honda when you wipe out because you burned through the brakes trying to stop at the end of the street run.
-----
Point and Counterpoint: The Tick - "Spoon!" Neo - "There is no spoon."
I'd ask SCO, but they have no "contact us" on their support site....
I think the fact that indemnification is being offered at all is rather convincing for a lot of corporate executives, even if their company is not actually indemnified by a vendor. What I mean is, when a CxO sees that respected industry leaders like IBM, Intel, Novell, RedHat and others say that they will cover the legal bills of any customer that gets sued, they assume that the SCO case must be weak. Why else would these companies put themselves on the hook for what could otherwise be millions of dollars in attorney fees? If they perceive the chance of being sued as very remote, they are a lot more likely to invest in Linux, even if there is still a small chance of a lawsuit. Remember, any company that is producing or selling anything takes risks of being sued as a result of their everyday operations. And like I said earlier, for largish companies, the savings in Microsoft licenses could pay all the legal fees they would ever encounter from Linux use.
You must be new here :) Sorry about the troll action.
If SCO does win on _any_ point, no matter how trivial, couldn't they compell Novell to give them the list?
My pet rock has no pulse, now PAY UP!
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
"Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, SCO's accusers would certainly want you to believe my client doesn't own the rights to Unix, and they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself. But Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider.
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk who carried a gun and ran from the mob. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it. That does not make sense. Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks. That does not make sense.
But more important, you have to ask yourself what does this have to do with this case. Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case. It does not make sense. Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major Unix company and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
And so you have to remember when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No. Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit.
I know SCO seems guilty. But ladies and gentlemen this is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one minute. That does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when a company is on the line? Why? I'll tell you why. I don't know. It doesn't make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense you must acquit. Here look at the monkey , look at the silly monkey.
The defense rests."
Proof!
Nuff said...
That is all.
We assume that if you release someone else's code under the GPL, it's your sole liability. This is the way it should be, but unfortunately, there's nothing about it in the GPL. Corperate legal departments realize that there are crazy companies that might just sue them. I've seen other licenses that say, "The author warrants that this code is his to release, and assumes sole liability if it isn't."
I think the GPL really ought to say something like that. So vendors offering indemnification is really just a stopgap solution until licenses can be changed.
Litigious bastards
Symbol Market Employees
SCOX 222.92M 340
MSFT 298.10B 55000
RHAT 3.63B 566
SGI 622.66M 3714
NOVL 4.42B 6524
SUNW 17.80B 36100
HPQ 75.25B 141000
NIPNY 13.29B 147004
IBM 157.50B 315889
SGI will have trouble...
Kind of reminds me of the Selden/Ford battle in which George Selden threatened to sue anyone owning an automobile who didn't pay a licensing fee. Ford ensured that ford owners would be protected.
Selden/Ford
-John Fenley
Look, there are two categories of companies. Those that think that SCO is completely full of it (and I suspect that Novell is among this group) and those that think that there is some actual chance that SCO might be right.
The first group of companies doesn't give a damn about Novell's indemnification, and will happily use whatever Linux distro they want.
The second group of companies has been avoiding Linux because they're unsure. As it happens, they're probably just uninformed, but Novell will happily take their money and welcome them to the Linux fold. That means more Linux users, which is probably a good thing.
May we never see th
Just so we are all on the same page:
Caldera renamed themselves the SCO Group after getting (some) Unix liscensing rights and the name SCO from "SCO", who spun themselves off and now go by the name of their main product, "Tarantella"
Tarantella is probaly still in Santa Cruz (SCO==Santa Cruz Operation)
"SCO" aint the old SCO that was once respected, it's the failed Linux distro company Caldera, in a clown suit, using someone elses name tag they bought for a dollar.
The family tree of "SCO" is twisted to say the least...
HP did, now Novell did...
My question is: why does IBM refuse to do so?
-- forgive me my poor Engl...
It seems that many are confused about Linux being Unix (Forbes, SCO etc), it seems that the GNU in GNU/Linux *does* serve a useful purpose after all , pointing out the fact that GNU is Not Unix. You can't argue with a recursive acronym.
Maybe we should give GNU the kudos they deserve and actually call it GNU/Linux from now on, I mean where would GNU/Linux be without gcc binutils automake etc today anyway.
Would be fun to replace the hot grits in my pants with a couple of these!
My question is: why does IBM refuse to do so?
My thoughts, for what they are worth:
There really isn't any need for indemnity, because as people have pointed out, there really isn't any need to do so. The best SCO could hope for if they brought an action against an end user, is to prevent them from stopping using linux. After all, the end user isn't the person responsible for the infringement, and SCO is unlikely to recover any costs at all from end users.
So why is it that SCO keep on demanding indemnification? Because rather than going after end users, it allows them to put pressure on IBM. If IBM indemnifies, SCO is then able to go after all of IBM's customers, safe in the knowledge that the only people who will be stumping up are IBM. They don't alienate the customers, they simply present IBM with a bill for every one of their end users who happen to be using Linux. Even if they don't believe they can win, the costs alone inherent in such a stream of lawsuits have got to be a serious pain in the arse for IBM, and I think SCO's insistance that IBM should offer this indemnification is nothing more than an attempt to goad them into taking a strategically poor position which they'll later exploit -- thereby putting more pressure on Big Blue to settle.
Now given that IBM don't actually have their own distro, it makes no sense whatsoever for IBM to offer indemnification. However, IBM will now be able to recommend Suse/Novell to those customers who have anxieties about this issue, and they've got their indemnification.
And should SCO actually try and bring an action against Suse end users, Novell can then turn around and say in court, 'What the fuck are you crackheads talking about? We own this technology. We simply sold you the rights to license it to others. The copyrights are all ours.'
Novell wins by increasing sales to those who want indemnification at little risk. IBM wins, because they can now offer customers a distro that has indemnification. SCO's evil plan fails dismally as shrewder players manage this crafty end run around their nefarious scheme.
Why? What incentive is there for an author to do that? If I take some random GPLd software, make some modifications and redistribute it under the terms of the GPL, why would I make any warranties about the code that I originally modified?
SCO are going to be hammered for this whole saga. I don't think there is too much danger of other companies trying for a repeat performance. I suspect SCO would never have started this if they knew where it was going to lead - they probably just thought there was some easy money for the taking - but they've backed themselves into a very nasty corner now.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
>SCO tried going off on yet another FUD tangent >(presumeably since as of today, their legal case
> should cease to exist) by pointing the finger at
> various Linux-related companies, asking why, if so
> confident in SCO's lack of a case, they didn't
> offer to indemnify their clients.
Yeah, and today McBride said that since they are idemnifying their costumers, they must know there is a problem with Linux:
"We believe Novell's indemnification announcement is significant for a couple of reasons. By announcing the program they are acknowledging the problems with Linux. Through the restrictions and the limitations on the program, they are showing their unwillingness to bet very much on their position."
hehe - as you can see, it is possible to spin either action the way SCO likes.
I miss my rubber keyboard.(Homepage)
Just a few stories up SCO was blasting the Linux vendors for not poviding legal indemnity. Their take was "Look, if you're so sure your code isn't infringing, give your users legal peace of mind". They thought no Linux company would take them up on it. Novell with this move has stepped up to the table, anteed up, and put the ball right back in SCO's corner.
I though that SCO and SuSE had partnership in which they distribute a pre-complied server version of linux. Surely SCO can't sue SuSE and therefore SuSE's customers for ip violations, as they would have agreed on what code was used.
www.unitedlinux.com
I have come under the increasing belief that to be indemnified or insured for something in the legal arena is just an open invitation for a US lawyer to sue you, because you now have enough money to make it worthwhile. Even worse, you probably have enough money for them to construct some form of class action to make it really worth their while and ensure you go out of business anyway.
As many people have pointed out, I'm still not sure why you need to be indemnified. Any copyright/ patent breach is by the original creators of an application, not by the end user.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
After reading a few posts here, if you are thinking that Novel's indemnity somehow helps SCO you are very wrong. Here is the situation:
SCO is trying to sell people property that belongs to someone else. If you buy a Linux licence from SCO you are buying a share of swampland in a national park or a share in the Brooklyn Bridge.
Novell and HP are simply playing to the market. Buy from us because we will defend you from the biggest con in the computer industry since... since British Telecom tried to claim they owned the hyperlink. It's a marketing ploy and HP and Novell both know they'll never have to deal with more than one lawsuit.
-- $G
And I guess I made a good guess ;)
Yesterday, I posted this comment regarding the $10 Million Defense Fund and today, Novell announces their indemnification plan. I shoulda been an investment banker.
Seriously though, this made me think about something after reading the article. I havent checked out the specific agreement from Novell, but it is a step in the right direction, IMHO. However, it occured to me that this would be a great way to put a linux company out of business...
As litigous as SCO is, lets say for the sake of arguement that the Novell program takes off, and they get 10,000 new customers under the program.
Then SCO turns around and files suit against 50% of that group. That is now, if I understand it correctly, 5000 lawsuits that Novell will have to contend with, in addition to already pending litigation concerning the purchase of SuSE in the first place.
Seems to me that this program, and others like it, while a Good Thing[tm], could be used against the company providing indemnification. SCO doesnt even have to win, they just have to file enough suits to tie Novell's money up in court for months...
Damn me for understanding evil.
"Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
Unfortunately, I have to agree. Msft/sunw/scox have successfully put a cloud over FOSS. For msft/sunw, funding scox was money very well spent.
Here's a safer way to bet that SCO will lose than by selling them short. Wait for Novell to drop on this news and then buy it. Since you're backed up by a cushion of real business, it's much less risky than shorting SCO.
So, if Novell drops at opening, and you believe the SCO suit is completely meritless, you should be able to earn the amount of the drop when the suits are dismissed or lost.
(If Novell doesn't drop on the news, then it becomes clear that the market doesn't really believe SCO's claims have merit, but that there is a small group of misguided traders controlling the movement of the stock.)
Milo
Why doesn't Novell have it's own topic subsection?? Their recently bought product lines do. Heck, Apple alone has half a dozen topic headings. And this thread is under Caldera. I've looked - where do I request Novell to be a topic...
legal. fun. profitable. pick two.
Sometimes spin makes some sense, but when I read this quote from McBride, I just thought, "Huh? How do you get that conclusion?"
"By announcing the program --> ??? --> they are acknowledging the problems with Linux."
There could be many reasons why they are doing that, and there isn't any indication of which it is. They state the one they want to believe in but phrase it as an obvious fact. It strikes me as trying to do those proofs in Geometry class in high school. You know the answer you're trying to get, but you can't quite get the direct progression that finally gets there, so the next to the last line is "Well, at this point it's obvious to see that the following is true."
The especially funny part about that is the complete reversal SCO does in this to continue to give the message they want. First they were saying, "If they really sure they were right, they would be indemnifying." Now it's, "They're indemnifying because they're worried they're wrong."
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
Are you referring to SuSE + IBM's new POS offerings? SCO must be just thrilled! (And that's probably the target audience for the "idemnification".)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Linux is based on Unix. It's basically a clone. What it isn't based on, is the source code to Unix.
That's why I'm not a lawyer - it would need to be worded more carefully. Each contributor should be responsible for his contributions only, and people who soley distribute it shouldn't be responsible at all. So in your example, you'd only be responsible for what you added. I'm not exactly sure what the legal mechanics for doing this are.
Litigious bastards
thats SCOumbag indemnification right :-D
in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that
Francis Smit
moderative bastards