Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
So, they are promising, in case they are slapped with a cease-and-desist order, to cease and desist. Whatever next?
Seeing as SCO can prove just about diddly, I don't think the RedHat Legal Code Change team will have much to do. The cards are being called SCO. Bluff time is over.
I'm not sure having Red Hat indemnify me or my company would give me the warm fuzzies anyway...
for indemnification to be meaningful you have to assume that the pockets behind it are deep enough to be able to actually pay out and protect you when (god forbid) the time comes.
Red Hat doesn't have enough of a track record for their promise to protect me to mean too much to me.
Yeah, replacing the ostensibly offending code is nice, but it won't get me off the hook if I've already been using something that has been found to be infringing.
With all that said you have to really believe that there is a reasonable shot of SCO succeeding for any of this to be terribly meaningful to you...
No man is an island, but Gary is a city in Indiana.
SCO has a plan to counter this. It is called the "Open Sores" program.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
Its nice to see that even though this is something that they would fix anyways, they are saying it publicly. To many times coporations words and actions imply that they will do something, only to not follow through. Its nice to see a company take a stand and say out loud, what they are going to do.
It would appear to me that the strength of Linux is its history and stability. Take that way, and trouble's a comin'?
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.
Intelligent Life on Earth
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 :-)
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.
It seems to me that SCO's pathetic case is shifting away from copyright and into ideas. If a ruling comes down saying that, for example, nobody but SCO can use the methods involved in a critical feature of RHE, what happens then?
This is, after all, first and foremost a bit of marketing. Red Hat is trying to get the message out to customers and would-be customers that the whole SCO thing does not create uncertainty or risk over the purchase or use of their product.
I've finally got around to changing my sig
To echo some earlier posters, yes it is legally useless, but my guess is that they feel they can offer it since they'll know they'll never need to follow through. As in ... "Sure, if God ever showed up on earth to judge you, I'd take the blame for your sins.".
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?
The Linux Community has already offered to rip out the infringing code and replace it once it is identified. Red Hat has understood that the community is going to live to its word and has formalized this into an offer of "Intellectual Property Warrant." This formal offer on behalf of the community may be more acceptable to the business folks rather than the diffuse commitments of the Linux Community. I think that's all there is to it.
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
The problem SCO is facing is this: they want to sell Linux "licenses" because their intellectual property is supposedly in there. And let's be clear -- it's not patent, trade secret, or trademark IP but copyright IP. But as soon as they say "we own this", the code can get yanked within days or weeks and re-written. So the licenses are worthless, which is why they're being so coy about pointing to the code (aside from silly claims on the ABI headers)
Of couse, they're suing IBM, alleging contract violations for letting their Super Special (and mysteriously Secret) stuff into Linux and claiming AIX, etc is a derivative of UNIX system V. And maybe there is a thin legal thread that might encumber AIX.
But who signed that contract on behalf of Linux? No one. Linux might have a few lines of copied code, but with no contract with SCO, there's no legal reason SCO gets to "own" Linux by calling it a derivative -- you'd need a contract for that.
So even if they're right, they're hosed. And I have my doubts about how right they are.
RedHat is saying to its customers "You can keep using our product without worry: We'll be right over to replace any part of your RedHat Linux solution which SCO can convince a judge they own."
RedHat has it right. They know SCO can't sue an end user for breach of contract if SCO doesn't have a contract with the end user.
A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
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!
Free XBox, PS2
That's why they removed fortune cookie and mp3 support from their distro.
Realtime doesn't mean fast. It means deterministic. It means that you can determine, that without a doubt, that A will happen within X amount of time after B.
The (few) deterministic systems that I've seen have all been slower than their non-deterministic counterparts. Things have to managed very differently.
If Redhat sells me software that is found to infringe on SCO's copyrights, then that is a problem between Redhat and SCO. As the end user, I am not the infringer.
You don't see Eolas suing Microsoft users over their patent lawsuit. You don't see CD buyers being sued for buying a rap CD that has been found to have used sampled music without permission.
The "Open Source Assurance Program" is just PR.
I've been following this SCO trash since day 1.
.357 reasons to GTFO and STFU real quick.
I seriously do not understand... How, exactly, is it that SCO can charge a licensing fee for IP they have not proven belongs to them?
Is there NO protection for consumers?
This isn't just a case of SCO commiting liable, fraud, stock fraud, etc.... but this is also SCO blatently stealing from consumers.
This means, one day, someone like Microsoft could just barge in and say Linux code had stolen MS code in it - force companies to pay under the threat of a massive legal dispute - something 99% of the companies in this country would be defenseless against and would be forced to pay - much like what SCO is doing right now.
Where is our "Big Brother," you know - the one who will stick you in jail for 20 years for simply posessing the knowledge and the means to decrypt a satellite signal. (Ohh, how we love the DMCA.)
At what point are we going to have another postal situation, where some geek is going to go insane from being such a minority that said geek(s) will simply wreck havoc on government systems and end up a martyr.
God knows, I'm just about to the point where if an SCO rep knocks on my door - you can gurantee Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson will give them
This is unreal. I'm half American Indian - but I've never really felt like a minority because I suppose I 'appear' white. Now I really think I'm beginning to understand what Black people complain of. Look at what is happening to the OS community, we're the minority. WE'RE the Black people of technology.
Something needs to change. We need some political action, the average person needs to be aware of what is happening with technology. Linux is without question the only real potential OS to replace MS Windows. MS knows that, SCO [Obviously] knows that, but the average person just has no clue.
Being that Linux is unquestionably on the brink of becoming the replacement desktop - you would think this should be newsworthy and of great public interest.....
*sigh*
The company or person who put the [currently vapor] code there may be held liable. But not the end user who has been assured that the code is open source.
If someone contributed a short story to the NYT, and the NYT times printed it, a reader of the paper would certainly not owe royalties if the copyright turned out to be bogus.