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?
The promise is only about new SUSE support subscribers.
Warning: This sig contains a small bug. ==> *
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.
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
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...
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?
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.
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.
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
Unfortunately, for the same reason that the folks over at SCO keep on yakking...public perception. At this time, there is less than a small chance that the SCO lawsuit will bear fruit as it exists now, but the folks driving the bus keep on spouting. The result? The price stays high, goes higher, doesn't drop as much as it could. When other PR comes to light, they suffer. At this moment, in after hours trading, they are down $1.32. All the stories linked to the pages where I get the SCO price are about indemnification and the OSDL defence fund. Investors on a stock like this can read the review and be rattled. Thus, the PR here will probably be countered tomorrow with more PR from SCO.
-- The Hollow Man
Non illegitimati carborundum
If so will not this issue be dieing soon..?
( assuming they really do not have a claim )
Steve
What happens if SCO wins? No one at the moment can say that they won't. If that happens Novell stands to loose A LOT of money from the indemnification alone. No business, especially not one as big as Novell would do something like this just to get a few extra upgrade sales from a few of their customers.
*shrug*
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.
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.
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 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.
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 any one company provides security directly, it means all linux versions are safe to purchase. Isn't it?
No. Do you mean that a successful defense by Novell of a suit against one of their customers can be leveraged by non-customers? Maybe, but what if SCO doesn't sue an indemnified Novell customer first, but instead sues a non-customer? Novell has not indemnified them, so this announcement cannot make it safe, if it wasn't before.
On a different note, doesn't purchasing indemnification remove some of the benefit of using Open Source Linux? I have heard that, for example, with HP's indemnification offer, your protection is voided if you modify your Linux (at the source level) in any way. You have to use what they provide. You may or may not be able to recompile your kernel in order to change some settings, but any patches must be acquired through the official distribution channels. This is obvious because they cannot offer indemnification for something over which they have no control (patches they haven't approved).
For some companies, this will be fine, and they can trust that Novell or HP will provide up-to-date software, security and bug fixes, etc. to meet their needs. But the true freedom and control that is supposed to be a benefit of Free Software is reduced.
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
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.
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
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
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?
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?
It's as risky as...well...eating a melon with a spoon.
For your information, I tried eating a melon with a spoon. The melon wasn't ripe, so I had to push the spoon quite hard. As a result, bits of melon went flying off to the table next to mine, where an escaped convicted serial murderer happened to be sitting. He grabbed the spoon and proceeded to stab me violently with it. Then he shoved the melon up my..well nevermind the rest.
So you see, I resent that remark!
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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'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
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 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!
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';
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.
Novell said "Don't you dare terminate IBM's license for AIX." and I haven't seen SCO put out anything saying they complied. Novell claims copyright to IP SCO requires to start suing end users (at least in their opinion.) and, in the press, SCO has basically accused Novell of a fraudulent filing. Both sides keep refering to one part of their contracts or another to "prove" they're right.
Both Novell and SCO keep drawing lines in the sand. Question is which one will file first?
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
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."
here ya go Melinda Gates connection to SCO. Courtesy of GrokLaw
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)
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.
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."
Anyone up for compiling a conspiracy theory or two?
Are you kidding? With all the tinfoil-hat wearing kiddies on here we've probably got 40 or 50 different conspiracy theories that are actually viable, and then another 4 or 5 hundred more each involving at least one of: underpants gnomes, beowulf clusters, natalie portman, soviet russia, or the goatse guy...
It's just that noone can come forward with these theories because if, on the off chance, they happen to be right... they won't be around much longer to talk about it...
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 know that lawyers are whores right? If my lawyer finds out that whoever submitted code actually worked for MS or the company suing me you'd better belive he'll be gunning for maximum damage and will be willing to work for free. It would be like hitting the lottery and not having to pay taxes on your winnings.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
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
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.
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