Slashdot Mirror
ZDNet Examines SCO Indemnity Options
Ursus Maximus writes "David Berlind of ZD NET has posted a major opinion/research piece. What do you all think? I don't like the story at all, but he does seem to have made more of an effort to try to find reasons to back up SCO's claims than any of their other supporters have."
Berlind makes no mention of the validity of SCO's claims--his argument is simply based on the existance of the lawsuits. That's like telling the manager of the local fast food franchise to give in to the mob's protection racket, because if you don't pay them off and your store gets trashed, you might get fired. Even if the local mob is two 12 year olds with nerf guns. It is idiotic to argue for imdemnification without analysing the threat posed by the SCO lawsuits. Anyone can file a lawsuit--it doesn't mean you should pay a 3rd party to indemnify you.
Basically, you have one question to ask yourself: How much peace of mind do you have now and how much more are you willing to spend for a little extra?
Others here have argued that the appearance of such warnings in the popular press - making Linux a risk - was part of SCO's intent all along. Don't know if they're right but the warnings are here.
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/mai n/What_did_SCO_buy.html
This was another garbage article by Berlind IMHO. Even if SCO did "own Unix" (which it does not!) The whole idea is irrelevant. None of "Unix" got put into "Linux". Even if a few lines out of millions got copied in the there, the concept of "de minimi" applies. Such as small amount is in there that it is irrelevant. Case closed.
'nuff said.
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
Reading the same FUD crap over and over through 'normal' media outlets is really getting old.
Though, I must admit, this is probably one of the better FUD articles I've read. Rather, it takes a new approach...
"Hey, normal users don't need to worry - you're safe. It's the big companies that have to worry. Just forget about it, and let SCO do their thing."
I'm not sure -- but it appears to me that the article is somewhat geared towards telling normal Linux users to abandon concern for the SCO situation and let the corporations take it all on alone.
Perhaps a new FUD tactic attempting to break up the community?
Regardless, I have a headache after reading it. 99% of the information in that article I've read 20 times already - with the only exception being the articles strong attempts to alleviate any concerns that normal Linux users may have of being sued.
I was actually reading the article with great interest until I read the paragraph you quoted above. After that, thoughts of "how much is this writer getting paid to write this?" started dancing in my head.
by the complications surrounding indemifying Linux because they don't understand the nature of Linux distributions. Linux and a distribution are not the same, yet Berlind keeps confusing the two in the case of HP, Sun and IBM, even though two of them contribute code and the other offers Linux on its hardware via Red Hat; one of them is suing SCO and the other two are indemifying against SCO lawsuits.
I don't see anything wrong with Red Hat's position; the software business is after all a get-rich-quick-via-litigation arena these days, and they are a valid target. So I don't buy Berlind's arguments of a preemptive strike either.
I'm not arguing against indemnity per se, but, especially in reference to Linux, I don't think anyone really knows how to measure it as an insurance cost; the estimates are currently wildly high or low. There would be a high barrier to entry from most insurers point of view in any case, which is why the big companies do a lot of research and wait to be sued over a product rather than take out a policy and cross their fingers.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
ZDNet is, effectively, advising their readership to pay protection money to SCO, in order to protect their image? Gee, that's a nice house you have there, be a shame if something happened to it. And those are nice kids you have...be a shame if something happened to them.
Give me a break. First of all, what are your chances of actually being sued by SCO? Fairly slim, I suspect. And even then, a simple motion that says "Your honor, Novell claims they have the copyrights to this material, and SCO is involved in legal process with them. Until such time as SCO can demonstrate that they actually own the property they are claiming, I move the case be placed on hold.
Second, so SCO sues you - I don't believe that they can win (see Groklaw for exhaustive details. You don't look bad to anyone except perhaps a few SCO or MS shills. Everybody else thinks you are a hero!
Finally, even assuming that SCO does own the copyrights, they still have yet to prove that any of their code is in Linux. That's what the IBM lawsuit is all about. And if you check the analysis on Groklaw, SCO is digging their own grave at warp speed.
Ziff Davis is being irresponsible and is givnig VERY bad advise.
The author avoids thinking about the case, and instead treats the outcome as a black box whose final outcome is too mysterious to even think about. This is not your standard contract dispute, this is SCO getting desperate. The proof of that comes in their laughable attempts to show any proof of stolen code, their continually varying claims, line counts going from millions to dozens, switching from contract to copyright claims, contradictions from one press release to the next, lying to the judge, idiotic remarks about the GPL being unconstitutional and a danger to national security ... no one who has a valid claim wanders over such a large map without ever getting to the point. SCO's behaviour is more like a drunken walk or Brownian motion. They have no goal except to keep walking.
Perhaps there is some doubt as to how much of the copyright Novell and SCO actually own, perhaps some of the finer points are in doubt too, but there are far too many clear cut lies from SCO, and that AT&T statement from 1985 really cuts the ground from underneath them.
Once you get that in perspective, the reason to not offer indemnification makes a lot more sense.
Infuriate left and right
Another interesting question to be asking is whether paying said money actually protects you in any fashion from being sued by SCO. First off SCO has shown they are ready and willing to terminate interminatable licenses at any time with anyone. Second off SCO has shown great interest in trying to legally implicate even further anyone who gives them money. Witness their recent incident in which all SCO UNIX licensees recieved a letter saying "Certify to us you are not using any linux installations containing SCO code, or we will terminate your license".
It's like kidnappers. Show them you're willing to cooperate by handing over the ransom, they'll just ask for more...
I'm curious if Ziff Davis offers indemnity to their readers in case of copyright violation. If they really believe an end user is liable for copyright infringement they really should be.
Mods,
This is both insightful and funny.
- IBM urgently writing a 'clean' kernel, when they don't know what is tainted?
- Novell releasing NetWare as GPL? Who would migrate to NetWare simply because Linux was no longer an option?
Both of these silly suggestions imply people want to run Linux for its kernel - whereas most people have limited interest in the kernel, but want an OS to let them run applications.
The information on indemnification wasn't bad, but the legal advice is essentially "Stop and think - accidents can happen to you". FUD
Dear Sir,
:)
I would like to point out something:
"SCO is a tiny company in Utah, with opposition that includes some of the
largest companies in the world, millions of Linux users, and the leaders of the
cultish open source movement."
Why is it that anytime there is something in the world that doesn't fit a mold
which is familiar to the layperson it is considered "cultish"?
I like GNU/Linux because it helps me run my business and because of all of the
other advantages of open source and free software and because I dare to be
different and think that some ideas should be free and open to the public.
Our founding fathers believed this. Why is it so hard to convince people
these days.
I do not think that makes me a member of some cult. If it does, then this
country is truly in deep trouble when it comes to personal freedoms.
Aside from the glaring inaccuracies and omissions, which I won't bother to
point out since the refutation of most of what SCO has said is on the net for
all to see, you're article disappoints me because it resorts to this type of
name calling to prove it's point.
What most people interpret as "cultish behavior" is the love and the attachment
which Linux users have to the operating system that they have worked so hard to
create. This sentiment is prevalent in many other communities. Last time I
talked to a die hard windows fan, I could swear I was talking to a cult member.
Please remember, that by stereotyping an entire community, such as you have
done in your article, you seek to diminish it's voice.
Good day, GJC
=====
Gregory John Casamento -- CEO/President Open Logic Corp.
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Insightful? Who's modding this?
A legal defense fund for developers covers EVERYONE that legally can be sanctioned by the court for copyright infringement. Does that explain Red Hat's move better? A clear explanation follows.
There's one thing in these lawsuits that even a non-lawyer can understand that really nullifies the whole point of your article. If I sell you a newspaper with a plagiarized article and the newspaper contains a license that says the newspaper comes with no warranty, you know no one can legally approach you for more license money later, since you never committed a crime. No warranty is a standard contract clause to avoid blame for buggy software, but it can't shift blame for a crime. No license can shift that responsibility. Likewise, only the parties that inserted stolen code and the parties that distributed it can possibly be guilty in this case. Darl McBride is no lawyer and clearly speaks often about legal issues without consulting one. He thinks that because the community owns the software, that they also get to answer for crimes, but they don't own it, since that's not how copyrights work. That copyright and its IP liability rests solely with the software authors or the companies they work for if it's work for hire. If there is stolen code in the Linux kernel, Linus Torvalds can be sued and sanctioned, but Google can not unless they added SCO IP.
HP chooses to indemnify, since it's something their customers ask for without understanding that only the developers can be held liable. Their indemnification doesn't protect modified software, so it's not worth the paper it's printed on. It's a cheap ruse that looks like a selling point.
Secondly, SCO has failed to add copyright claims regarding Linux to their IBM lawsuit after they claimed they were, which is the loudest canary singing today. Their new copyright claims are about IBM's failure to stop shipping AIX instead. Their trade secret claims have gone missing too.
I don't doubt a frivilous lawsuit can be won. I do doubt that it can be won without a lawyer's legal reasoning by the plaintiffs. Just because they can easily confuse the media doesn't mean they can confuse a judge.