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...
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!
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.
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
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?
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';
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.
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.
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
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.