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."
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
This move deprives SCO of its *only* positive cashflow.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
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.
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.
Actually, it refutes some of them.
SCO has said "if you're so sure your code doesn't infringe on our IP, why aren't you indemnifying customers?" Novell is now doing just that and, in a way, standing up for the community as well as saying "nanny nanny boo boo" to SCO.
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.
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.
Because there's an ARMY of PHBs in suits who think that Linux is 'interesting, but just a toy' and this is 'big trouble, they stole SCO code!'
Do you think a guy who's title is 'Vendor Risk Manager' is going to tell his boss to buy -LINUX- right now, with all the conflicting press?
This way Novell makes a buck, and the PHBs can 'safely' deploy. Everybody wins. We even get greater circulation of OUR product in the end!
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
Very well put. You beat me to this one. What the hell is the problem with these people. Someone stands up to SCO and now there taking advantage. Oh and to the parent, no they are not getting a sipport contract thrown in with the indemnification. They are getting indemnification thrown in with the support contract.
Assuming you're right, then why the hell would they want to indemnify their subscribers so they won't buy licenses? Call me naive but I don't think Novell has that kind of control over SCO.
This fight is best fought with legal defense pools such as recently established. Indemnification is what SCO wants, because it narrows their focus to the indemnifiers. It would be better to force SCO to fight these actions one at at time rather that aggregate the users for them.
Novell has a different agenda. It appears to me they are simply trying to buy support contracts.
I am reminded of the story of Brer Rabbit (SCO) and Brer Fox (Novell).
"Drown me just as deep as you please, Brer Fox," says Brer Rabbit, says he, "But please do not fling me in that briar patch, " says he.
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
The payments to Novell are from licensees at the time of the transfer agreement. SCO gets 100% of new license revenue, which would include licensing of Linux.
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."
You're right man.
Seriously, where do people think companies are going to make money? Everyone says "support contracts" but then when a company tries to sell them, people claim they are no better then Microsoft.
Why would Novell protect someone that does not purchase their support? I think it's a pretty good idea, good business practice, and throws this back in the face of SCO.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
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.
Novell has absolutely ZERO need for an insurance company to handle the claims.
SCO sues some Linux user over alleged SCO Unix IP? Novell exercises its right to waive SCO's action, as per the purchase agreement that bought whatever feeble Unix rights SCO has from Novell in the first place.
Novell also has the right to license Unix to its own customers, again voiding any attempted SCO suit.
-- Alastair
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.
How can...
They can try. And file enough forms and petitions and posture alot, which doesn't help the court case, but it does wonders for the stock price. They can get lawyers much smarter than you and I to fill 400 miles of paperwork, make different claims in public than you do in your court papers, and if the geeks can see through it, fine. As long as the suits can't, you might collect a bit of cash as you are burning the bridge behind you.
You might even get someone to buy you (just to shut you up) or sell some stock when the price jumps over the FUD you are spewing. Either way, you make more money that if you just quietly die as a company. As long as there is plausible deniability for whomever the puppet master is, its the most profitable way to go out of business, it would appear.
Its kinda like a pet store having a going out of business sale where they tell you that if you don't buy the puppy, they are going to shoot it with a gun. Yea, its shitty, but you buy the puppy because if they are crazy enough to say that, they may be crazy enough to do it.
And they reach their goal, selling all the puppies.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
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.
I think in the long run SCO has provided much work toward corporate Linux adoption/acceptance. It has forced (is forcing) major players to use their corporate names/money to say "use Linux, it's alright--we'll protect you". I think this lends Linux an air of business backed authority it didn't have before.
Well, in corporate sales, as in poker, money talks and bullshit walks.
Novell can say over and over and over again in excruciating detail why they think that SCO is full of it, but unless and until they put their money on the line and actually stand up to take some risk with their customers, no-one will really believe them.
-----
Point and Counterpoint: The Tick - "Spoon!" Neo - "There is no spoon."
Yes, but to say that it is based on UNIX could suggest that it uses UNIX as it's base code. I think it would be better to say it was modeled after UNIX. Less possibility for misinterpretation.
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
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.
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.