Red Hat's Open Source Assurance Program

scubacuda writes "ZDnet and others report that Red Hat now offers the 'Open Source Assurance Program' as protection for customers if they get hit with a copyright infringement case from the SCO Group. From their website: 'A key feature of the Open Source Assurance Program is an Intellectual Property Warranty. The warranty ensures, that in the event that an infringement issue is identified in Red Hat Enterprise Linux software code, Red Hat will replace the infringing code. Red Hat's warranty assures customers that they can use Red Hat Enterprise Linux and related solutions without interruption. The warranty is available for all customers having a valid registered subscription to Red Hat Enterprise Linux or related solutions.'" Following close behind Novell and Hewlett-Packard, but it looks like Red Hat is not actually indemnifying their customers like Novell and HP, but rather is simply promising to fix any real copyright problems moving forward, which is something I think we would assume they would do in any case.

Comments

Can't indemnify

[airrage]

Throughly useless I think. You can replace the code, but you can't indemnify 3rd parties. So, because anybody can sue anyone for anything, you'll still end up in court if your pockets are deep enough.

Like trying to swat elephants with fly-swatters.

How will this actually work?

[Sean80]

I'm not entirely clear how this would work out for customers, so a thought experiment. Say SCO successfully proves that the Linux thread scheduling code is a copyright violation. What does Red Hat do next? Sure, they could rewrite it, but would companies which are now running their flight booking apps, and (don't take me too literally here) their nuclear power station control programs on the Linux kernel be happy about this?

It would appear to me that the strength of Linux is its history and stability. Take that way, and trouble's a comin'?

Issues about exposure to code?

[LinuxHam]

Warning: DNRA

Seems like a strange thing to offer. Here at work, once you get exposed to open source code, you can never go back to dealing with internal code merely due to the risks that algorithms you develop internally may accidentally be recreated in open source work.

How can RH say that they will replace your code with non-tainted code if the tainted code is the only way they've seen for approaching a problem. Seems like they need the equivalent of an optoisolator between their tainted developers and non-tainted developers. A white room approach with a description of the goal slid under the door.

The least they could do.

[osewa77]

Being that this is literally the least they could do, this situation is an example of what it means to maximize profits by minimizing costs :-)

This is a better solution than the others

[MajorDick]

IMHO, this is a MUCH better solution, while I dislike SCO and their tactics, there MAY be some validity to their point , afterall look at how many contributions have been made, its happened before in opensource where someone included copyrighted code (yes I know what they have thus far claimed cant be verified) BUT what happens if it does ?

Remove the code ! I trust RedHat to replace the code quickly and effectivley, RH has made tons of contributions to linux. The others offer to absolve financial IF there is infringing code, RH says hey dont worry well replace the code so those infringments dont apply.

I like this solution much better being a RedHat customer.

is this possible?

[mcmonkey]

The warranty ensures, that in the event that an infringement issue is identified in Red Hat Enterprise Linux software code, Red Hat will replace the infringing code. Red Hat's warranty assures customers that they can use Red Hat Enterprise Linux and related solutions without interruption.

How can this be possible? If there is a case where Red Hat software contains infringing code, and Red Hat cannot come to an agreement with the code's owner on continuing use, Red Hat is prepared to replace the infringing code immediately? I presume use without interruption means support without interruption.

If Red Hat has a complete code base in wings so that any arbitrary bits of code found to be infringing can be replaced, and Red Hat is more sure of its legal standing on the replacement code (since it is meant to be used in event an existing infringement is found), why not just release that code?

Stock

[savagedome]

Even though SCO's stock has had one hell of a run, and (overwhelming) majority of us believe that their campaign is a fluff, nasdaq's risk analysis tools rates it almost alongside Redhat's stock.

SCOX grade is at 369 and RHAT is at 356.
For reference, Nasdaq is 86 and S&P500 is 52
Higher the number, greater the risk.

SCOX Risk
RHAT Risk
So, either these analysts are smoking crack or maybe I am just a dumbass when it comes to stocks. The later is a likely possibility!

Re:"if we're caught, we won't do it again"

[molnarcs]

This is actually one of the best ideas I ever heard. Of course stating that we will replace the code is stating the obvious (that's what linux hackers been saying all along) but what matters is the 'smell' of this statement: it smells professional and businesslike. And most importantly: it is a proactive document.

Also, it might provide some legal protection against alleged 'willful' infringment. If they can point their fingers to their Open Source Assurance Plan whenever they are brought to courts by a party claiming infringment, they have the acting in 'good faith' argument on their side, unless they won't live up to their promises (which is _very_ unlikely).

You might say this Plan is just words, but still, it has an important side-effect. Those who don't read groklaw daily, but know about SCO's fiasco, can now call RedHat whenever they receive a threatening letter. Of course, they could have called them anytime, but this document is like a message: call us if someone contacts you claiming infringment. This puts customers in touch with RedHat first, and RH can tell directly to their clients (who, as I said, don't necessarily read groklaw) what this case is about, and SCO failed to pinpoint any infringing code.