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."

35 of 271 comments (clear)

  1. does it seem like.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting


    Novell is using this as a chance to get support contracts thrown in with this protection?

    1. Re:does it seem like.. by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And you think they bought SuSE because ...?

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:does it seem like.. by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And you think they bought SuSE because ...?

      I would agree. Its ironic. Everyone is talking roses about them because even Novell says they are smoking crack. Then they put their money where their mouth is and offers protection for their customers (they can't offer protection for NON customers, there is no contract to protect, duh).

      And now everyone is comparing them to MS.

      It doesn't strengthen SCOs case, it demonstrates that SCO doesn't have one. They just called SCO's bluff because they can, for free. Indemnifying customers of legal action against SCO is like offering life insurance for your pet rock: There is little fear you will ever need to exercise the right and collect on it.

      If they make some money, too, great. Since they just invested $210 million in open source software, I hope they make a wad.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  2. Only support subscribers by thorgil · · Score: 4, Informative

    The promise is only about new SUSE support subscribers.

    --
    Warning: This sig contains a small bug. ==> *
  3. Other indemnities by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  4. Uh oh, I can hear the fingers typing now... by stienman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

  5. it looks like they're only looking for sales by dogas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  6. Re:Okay, but... by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The indemnification issue is not about indemnification itself. It's a smart, tactical play to encourage corporate Linux users not to cave and buy "licenses" from SCO.

    This move deprives SCO of its *only* positive cashflow.

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
  7. Indemnity is sign of an already-successful attack by phr1 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    If SCO (and imagine Microsoft doing the same thing later on) have managed to create enough FUD for users to be afraid of using free software unless identified by some company, that already undermines the goals of free software pretty badly. Being able to download, modify, and redistribute software with the author's permission isn't all that attractive if SCO has made you feel threatened by legal hassles for doing it. You no longer get the freedom from bureaucracy, hassles, per-seat fees, and so forth that the free software developers labored to bring you.

    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.

  8. it seems by toddhunter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Novell wins either way by ikekrull · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Novell wins either way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  10. Re:ARGGHHH... by cadfael · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  11. Didn't SCO get a court order to.... by beforewisdom · · Score: 5, Informative
    Was not a court order for SCO to present their "evidence" supposed to have come due today 1/12/04?

    If so will not this issue be dieing soon..?

    ( assuming they really do not have a claim )

    Steve

    1. Re:Didn't SCO get a court order to.... by futuramarama · · Score: 5, Informative
      As usual, check Groklaw for the lastest.

      Seems that SCO did indeed submit (so we wait while IBM reads it).

      Now its their turn to put a motion to compel discovery, asking for all modifications ever made by IBM to the System V source code.

      It seems that if SCO doesn't give in (and its unlikely they will), they can drag this out for quite some time.

      --
      "And that solves the mystery of the missing ring" - Bender
  12. Re:What a surprise by rendler · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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*
  13. Forbes take on this news by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  14. Novell by stefanmi · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!

  15. SCO Terrorist Effect by ChowyChow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:SCO Terrorist Effect by zurab · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Think of SCO as the terrorists of Linux. Novell is offering protection ...


      So ... either pay Novell the "protection" or SCO will "blow up" your workplace? I am a SuSE user but, quite frankly, this indemnification business is getting too messy. Nobody that I know of has started becoming scared of SCO or paying their license fees, or ditched Linux. If Novell believes SCO is making false accusations, they can follow RedHat and simply sue SCO right there in Utah! They now own SuSE and they have every right to shut SCO up.
  16. I smell conspiracy! by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Funny
    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

    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!

  17. Re:Indemnity is sign of an already-successful atta by pla · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  18. Re:Indemnity is sign of an already-successful atta by LinuxMacWin · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  19. If SCO wins? by El · · Score: 4, Funny

    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

  20. Whatever's comming out of the court room by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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/
  21. What has gotten into Novell!? by Fefe · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

  22. Are you people happy with nothing? by soren42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
    1. Re:Are you people happy with nothing? by stewball · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wish I had some mod points to give you, but hopefully someone will take care of that.

      I've seen the inside of a fair number of discussions on whether and to what extent to provide indemnification in contract, and the calculus is pretty damn simple.

      1) How much are we making on this deal/this product?

      2) How big would the exposure be (including legal fees, etc.) if we provided x kind of indemnity? (There are a LOT of different ways to structure indemnification provisions, and I don't know what Novell has in mind.)

      3) What is the likelihood that we'll have to pay out?

      If revenue is less than risk magnitude multiplied by exposure estimate, you don't indemnify unless you're willing to play craps with the future of your company. Period. Punto. End of story.

      Now, Novell is saying it will indemnify people on a PROSPECTIVE BASIS if those people contribute to Novell's revenue stream. This is a pretty reasonable bargain. I don't think there's a CFO or institutional investor alive who would agree to let their company go BACK to the customer base and add risk to the company's profile when all of the pricing to those customers was calculated using a lower risk profile.

      In other words, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
      ------

      --
      Point and Counterpoint: The Tick - "Spoon!" Neo - "There is no spoon."
    2. Re:Are you people happy with nothing? by spitzak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Because such actions reinforce stupid decisions by legal departments such as yours.

      If it becomes standard that you cannot buy or use code without "indemnity" then you have made it impossible for an independent code writer to write a program and have people use it. This is irrelevant to open source, what you have pretty much said is that writing code is the realm of big business and that start-ups and free enterprise and just the desire to tell people about solutions you have figured out have become illegal.

      This goes far beyond Linux. Linux is now being protected by big money interests in the same way Windows is. But the next genius grad student who writes the "Linux-killer" operating system is going to be out of luck, as everybody who he shows it to is going to say "but you have no idemnity, so I'm going to have to stick with Linux..."

      Even people who think Linux is the end-all of software should realize that this means the death of applications for Linux from independent authors, since they cannot "idemnify" their code. And Windows fans should realize this means the death of all the Shareware and Freeware and open source software, and also the few remaining tiny software vendors, all of who cannot afford "idemnification" either.

      I don't care if this action causes SCO to go bankrupt tomorrow, this is a bad precedent for Novell to do this.

  23. A less cynical response... by Alethes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  24. Re:ARGGHHH... by AJWM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  25. Re:Indemnity is sign of an already-successful atta by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!
  26. So where does Xenix fit into this mix? by gmac63 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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';
  27. Check the date of the merger! by bstadil · · Score: 5, Informative
    so it starts January 13th? otherwise you have to buy an 'upgrade package'?

    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.
  28. Melinda Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    here ya go Melinda Gates connection to SCO. Courtesy of GrokLaw