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."
my guess about why redhat is not offering indemnification is that it would be setting itself up as an easy target.
Maybe RH figures (not unreasonably) that it is better to let the big boys slug it out. I think if it were a choice between RH's lawyers and IBM's lawyers, I know who SCO would go for.
Humorous signatures are over-rated.
Listen, I mean - maybe we can still settle this. I want what we're due... you want what's fair... look: I'm taking one... two... see? Two big handfuls of mints from the nice bowl on the reception desk... all good? Okay so far? Excellent. And I'm keeping my visitor's name tag, and I want on your Christmas mailing list. No? Okay... just the mints and the tag? Just the mints? Excellent.
Hey, look -- Jesus at the copier!!
CHRIS! Grab another handful of mints! Let's bolt!@!!1
~Darl
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.
from Berlind's Bio ...
... Prior to that, he served as editor-in-chief of Windows Sources, where he led the magazine's push for exclusive coverage of Windows NT for business users.
o si um/speakers/DavidBerlindBio.shtml
http://www.wirelessenterprisesymposium.com/symp
Sounds like permanent brain damage to me.
Ziff-Davis is a Microsoft shill. Their bias
is pretty transparent.
Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.
Same. Old. Story.
So is SCO claiming that their code is in the least safe operating system?
;)
I can see why no one wants to pay $699 for it!
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Interested in AI? MACR
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.
Argh, has the legality of SCO asking for that money even been established? Yeah sure I'll skip the corp-lawyers and take the advice of a fucking net-journalist and fork over the dough. Is it even to get SCO to accept the money?
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
'nuff said.
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
I stopped caring when the guy took the 10-Q filing as a strong piece of evidence against Linux. 10-Q filings need to include EVERYTHING, essentially in "the sky is falling" mode, just in case it does happen and the SEC gets hard core, or even shareholder lawsuits. Yeah, there's always the off chance that SCO might win, but to take this warning in the 10-Q as strong evidence gives strong evidence he doesn't know what he's talking about.
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.
It is very telling that Sun was pushing the indemnification angle in this timeframe. This really sheds some light on their funding of SCO as a means to further their own hidden adgenda. Like Microsoft they appear to have used SCO to attack Linux by proxy and advance their own business. In SUN's case it is particularly mendacious as they pose as a Linux ally while working against our interests.
Moreover, in this article too, nowhere has he questioned the validity of SCO's claims. He seems content to criticize other companies for their indemnification programs.
Given the current state of our collective PHBs, the kind that aren't technical, and both fear and resent their more technical employees, this article attempts to soothe their fears. Just pay up, and you won't have to worry. Don't bother asking your developers and/or legal staff for pesky details and long-winded explanations. Just sweep the cost under the rug, as it were. Don't worry, Mr. Manager, you can sleep soundly at night, knowing that through your failed initiative, Darl McBride is a richer man. Heck, your own stock portfolio might event perform better now.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I found an interesting contradiction in this article... In one line he speaks of the defense fund for developers, and mentions they aren't likely to get sued. And in another he mentions Linus Torvalds and Andrew Morton by name as likely to get sued... Just who did he think they are? Another case of someone WAYYYYYYYYY out of their depth...
What he probably meant to say was "my intended audience of (frightful?) enterprise users of Linux are NOT developers, so they don't want to know who is gonna get sued, they only care if they are gonna get sued..."
I also found it odd(in the sense that it indicates his research was skewed as not to sound alarmist) that he spent so little time speaking about how vital a part of a proper support contract indemnity used to be (in Mainframe and Minicomputer environments, which aren't as plentiful now) and are now being forgotten because people think anyone MCSE can run what they call "a departmental server" on 2000$ hardware with no backup or redudancy... As for indemnification I always thought a good rule of thumb was if your computers systems total 50000$ of book value, or handle more than a million a year in money value, you should either get indemnification, or negotiate an equivalent value out of your support contract(equivalent to the indemnification, not the 50000)
If anything, we live in interesting times...
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
For many, the answer to these questions has to do with the likelihood that SCO might succeed in its legal endeavors. It's like basing the decision to get collision insurance for your car on the likelihood that you're going to get into a fender bender while traveling down a desolate stretch of highway.
That is to say, he doesn't sound like he thinks SCO might succeed (it's a "desolate stretch of highway"), but that perhaps you should get indemnification *before* more "traffic" (somebody with a legit claim... say, somebody with a "defensive" patent...) comes along.
Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
Some time ago, I posted this to Groklaw, I've since updated it some, so here it is again. It can be sung to the tune of Don McLean's "American Pie" (sort of). You'll have to excuse the scarcity of carriage returns in the below text. Slashdot would not allow me to post with them, saying the lines were too short. Anyway, enjoy!
A long long time ago, I can still remember how Unix used to be so great, tape drives were as big as cars for saving files, known as tars and perhaps, we could save it from its fate
But Richard Stallman surely shivered when Windows NT was delivered, with icons on the desktop and a flying toaster backdrop
But I can't remember if I cried such great relief I felt inside, we had IBM on our side the day Caldera died
*Bye Bye Mr. Darl McBride, claimed there's Unix in our Linux but we know that you lied, and them Redmond boys are cursing Samba and WINE, thinking this'll be the way that they die, this'll be the way that they die.
Did you use the kernel source? Well the GPL you can't enforce. Just because I said it is so, we'll sue you if you don't desist, its not a slap across the wrist and that's the FUD that's coming out of SCO
Well, he belongs in a prison cell, or in the fiery pits of hell, his name is Darl McBride, and he'll take you for a ride, his SCOsource license costs a grand, but no one's got one in his hand. We all told him to go pound sand, the day Caldera died, we were singin'
repeat *
Didio came to spread the FUD, and SCO was after Linus's blood, but that's not how its going to be, cuz PJ came and did her blog, and Darl I'm sure, that dirty dog, reads it all, quite religiously
In Las Vegas back in August, SCO tried hard, tried with earnest to prove Linux wasn't free, but they showed us BSD. We all laughed and we all reeled, when we observed what they'd revealed. So now they keep their claims all sealed, the day Caldera died, we were singin'
repeat *
Then they released some header files, and that left them on the tiles, cause the files contained not a line of code. You can't lay claim to 123, its just a number you can see, that simply tells the program how to load
It's public knowledge, for all to know, that's what was told by us to SCO, but did those fools believe it? They just could not conceive it. We own Unix and all the works, all its traits and all its quirks, and then they called us stupid jerks, the day Caldera died, we were singing
repeat *
And now they're suing Novell too. They'll sue me and they'll sue you. They're saying this in every place. They are fighting against our IBM, and fighting the owners of RPM, but they don't have a solid case
It's gonna bust its gonna break, investor's money they plan to take. Stock won't be worth a dime, and it will be a crime. Insider trading we'll all cry, Linux was just their alibi, Darl and Kevin the feds will try the day Caldera died, we're a singin'
repeat *
When times were dark and things were glum, Darl had Linux by the thumb. Someone had to save the day. But like an episode of Scooby Doo, PJ and friends all came through, and Linux is here to stay
But back in Utah, so it seemed, SCO did cry, and then they screamed. They couldn't match a token, no copyrights were broken, and the OS I admire most, is free to all, from coast to coast, and SCO is but a distant ghost, the day Caldera died, and we were singin'
repeat *
IANAL or a poet or a musician. So there.
Unknown host pong.
Maybe not related but d@m funny! SCO street photo at Groklaw
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
David Berlind sells his sco shares 2 days after posting artilce :)
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.
Why does anyone still believe in these "analysts" any more? And I fail to see how an opinion piece by a former Microserf in a Microsoft-mouthpiece is news...just more of the good ol' FUD from the same ol' sources...
Never underestimate the predictability of human stupidity...
You should never give money to a terrorist. What is the purpose of indemnity? Does SCO own any copyrights to System V Unix? A lot of people want to know. It seems unlikely that SCO owns any copyright to IBM's code but you never know with certainty what a judge will do. I think if SCO had any real hope in the courtroom they would not talk so loudly to the press. I am not altogether on IBM's, Red Hat's or Novell's side but none of them make several outlandish press announcements a week while they let their business go down the sewer. It may take a long time but when this is done SCO and Darl will be very dead. If Novell really gets 95% of license sales and lawyers get 20% what does Darl get? It doesn't look good for the stockholders.
Take a look at this article from a week or two ago on Groklaw.
PJ compares SCO's worst case scenarios with those of RedHat, IBM & co.
It makes for much more interesting reading than many of the other legal filings I've read... Note how in that article, SCO describes quite a few ways in which its business could fold, compared to rather bland statements that something bad might happen in the off chance SCO ever actually prevailed with some bit of their case.
It's kind of fun to read all the various ways in which SCO might be liquidated, though. I wonder which of them will happen?
Mr. Berlind wrote that we open source-ers are 'cultish.'
That's ridiculous.
I say we hex him.
I have run into this joker's silly opinions before, and this one is par for the course. Just read a few of his other opinions, if you can get through them, and his total irrelevance, on ANY subject, will be apparent. Shortly after his appearance at ZDnet a couple of years ago, I deleted them from my bookmarks.
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
SCO has not yet made the case in cort. Not to defend Microsoft more than I have to but Microsoft is in cort a lot and many times for bogus IP rights issues. Actualy at any given time at least one of the big players is fighting some sort of IP rights clame made by a much smaller company.
If your thinking of a one time indemnification then yeah SCOs deal looks pritty sweet but let's get real here that isn't how things will go down if SCO makes a good chunk of change from SCOs liccensing. In fact it's more of a lose lose situation for anyone who forks it over.
If SCO wins the case there are many other issues to deal with and you've already set yourself up for a bunch of collage students and IT profesionals to stick hands out expecting a cut.
If SCO loses you've set yourself up for every Tom, Dick and Herry who thinks they can take on Microsoft, Intel or Apple to seek an liccens from YOU reguardless of how stupid or anil the clame may be.
Pony up... It's not the drop of blood you think it is.
On the other hand the corts could deside this practace is illegal.
Then your just out the cost of the one liccens.
I don't actually exist.
I can't count the number of Gartner, IDC, Forrester and other 'experts' I've had my clients drop their services.
IT Analysts are one of the biggest scams going.
How did slashdot miss this article?
Any infringement (if it even exists) is still SCO's fault. SCO has still not given us exact line numbers or snippets of code. They have made statements without backing them up and claim that Linux is still hurting their IP.
The only thing we've seen are claims that are nothing short of saying anything IBM has touched is stolen from SCO...It's obvious that SCO has no plans to actually cooperate with the kernel dvelopers, as there has really been no attempt at contacting the developers directly...
There's really no reason for this type of speculation until the courts actually make their decision...this article seems to assume that SCO's claims are as good as gold...To be honest, SCO doesn't look to be moving on their end...
This guy is the Executive Editor of Tech Update. He got his degrees in Computer Information Systems. (and he wears those stupid emo glasses) Why is he talking about the legal issues of the whole SCO debate?
Another clueless hack with a word processor.
I guess most people realize this guy knows little about computers, and nothing about law, so his main claim to fame is...that he is a journalism major writing for Ziff-Davis? That means his rant is just a nicely worded Slashdot troll.
He writes like he knows something when in fact he's being completely uncritical of not only *fact* but recent events. Particularly how SCO's lawsuit has completely changec character and is now down to 60 lines of code that they claim were copied.
SCO's case is on its last legs, but he talks as if SCO is an aggrieved party looking for a little love.
Lets do some digging on this chump and see what other jems he is pushing on an unsuspecting public.
He says "If you take some time to study the case"
let me translate:
1) I, wise sage, have studied the case
2) You, stupid dope, have not
3) I conclude there is much to this lawsuit and it will be difficult to dismiss
He's so full of shit that he burps brown.
THe point of the article is to say:
Wow, this is complicated, you can't understand it. FOrtunately, I do understand it and let me tell you, this looks really difficult for you if you use Linux.
He ignores that fact that SCO has changed their tune in the lawsuit; they no longer claim they own Linux/Unix/AIX; they're saying "Oh look, shiny!"
Please stop trying to defend this guy; he's a moron with a word processor.
I want this thing to go to court so we can hear arguments that actually have consequences. Really, no matter how it ends, it ends well for open source. If the very best thing happens, SCO is vaporized in the markets after the judgement against it. In the very worst case, IBM gets hammered, linux essentially becomes quasi-legal, and we can embark on the largest and most productive exercise in civil disobedience in a generation.
I'll post any response I get
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
He needs to read more Groklaw. Pity, his article is long enough that he could have backed it up with research.
First, regardless of who owns SysV, SCO can't find any of it in Linux. Therefore, the "who own SysV?" question is moot.
Second, this case hinges on SCO's alleged contracts with IBM. I'm not a party to those contracts. If IBM put stuff into Linux that they weren't supposed to, then, that's a tussle between IBM and SCO. Not "me and SCO", or "Lehman Bros. and SCO". IBM and SCO. Period.
SCO's case rests on their bastardized idea of "intellectual property" that no lawyer that I know of (outside of their paid counsel) has bought into. Plenty of lawyers are laughing at them.
My feeling is that the "SCO case", and I mean all of it, will be over far quicker than most people think. It'll be sudden, unexpected, and leave everybody with their jaws dropped. You heard it here first...
Do you have ESP?
You don't need to worry.
Read Groklaw. Sit back. Laugh.
Worry? I don't think so.
==
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
"OK, so you want to come at this the hard way? No problem." (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
This could open an avalanche for copyleft. It would mean any code which has ever been *near* any copylefted code would be owned by copyleft. Removing the copylefted code would be no remedy. The FSF would have field day chasing down all past GPL violators and any company which has even looked at GPL code (the majority, even if they won't admit it or actually used it?). The opportunity for retribution against the Darl McBrides of this world would be fantastic, and make others wish the SCO case had never happened.
It's an easy game to play until you notice that you have to include the quality of the evidence somewhere in the equation. At which point TSG's case goes all wahoonie-shaped.
I can just about imagine the IBM legal office examining TSG's amendmended complaint (I'm pretty sure they want to nail TSG's hide to the shed, if possible, no quarter asked or given): "Amendment fourteen!" <pause> <raucous laughter> "No! Wait! Wait! Amendment eighteen! Amendment eighteen! Unnnnn-believable! <bwaaaaah-hah-har!> Get a load a'tha' second sentence! Whoooe!" <more raucous laughter> ...
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
..."once you pay Danegelt, you never get rid of the Dane".
There's an idea for a new term, "thescogroupgelt"... hmm, doesn't roll of the tongue too well. How about "canopygelt"? (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
This piece completely forgets that SCO just removed all of the Unix is in Linux parts of their case, and now it is only that AIX and Dynix are in Linux, which SCO has no reason to believe they actually own, and if a judge finds that code developed by IBM and Sequent is actually owned by SCO well, I'll have to move to a different country, based on that ruling code developed using Microsofts MFC is owned by microsoft, code developed using Qt is owned by trolltech, and so on and so on...
- 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
They aren't allowed to ask for the money, because of why they're asking for the money.
They're asking for you to pay for their "intellectual property" in Linux, and there isn't any. The short name for what they're doing is "fraud", and yes, it is illegal.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The article, which was truly stupid, ran on ZDNet. While that sounds like Ziff-Davis, it's not. ZDNet is part of CNET, a separate company; they bough it from Ziff-Davis several years ago. Ziff-Davis still puts out PC Magazine (pcmag.com) and Extreme Tech, among other things. Sort of like how Lycos owns Wired.com, not Wired magazine, though those two still have a working relationship that is not apparent between ZDNet and CNET.
Among CNET properties, ZDNet seems to be oriented towards Windows-loving IT pros. Maybe that's part of its Ziff-Davis heritage, or just a marketing decision.
The author says that those who dismiss SCO's claims haven't really analyzed their merits, but have relied on the opinions of others. But he doesn't do any merits analysis either. He just looks at who has indemnified their users and who hasn't -- that is, the opinions of others -- and suggests there is something significant in IBM's and Red Hat's failure to offer indemnification.
There isn't. Whether you distribute proprietary software or GPL'd software, there is always a nonzero risk that some of your code, one day, might be held to infringe someone else's intellectual property rights. Indemnifying against that risk therefore has nonzero cost. Proprietary software vendors can cover that cost in the license fee they charge for the software. But GPL software vendors do not and cannot charge a "license fee" for the software.
Obviously, GPL software vendors can and do charge for other things, such as maintenance and support, access to FTP and web sites, or even copies of the program. But they cannot charge a "license fee" for the right to obtain or use the program. If you can't and don't charge a license fee for the code, you shouldn't be expected to provide either a warranty or an indemnity.
I guess most people realize this guy knows little about computers, and nothing about law, so his main claim to fame is...that he is a journalism major writing for Ziff-Davis? That means his rant is just a nicely worded Slashdot troll.
To be fair, to write a really good summary of what's going on, you'd need to be skilled at law, software development, and journalism, and I'm fairly convinced that anyone that's really competent in all three areas is not going to be making a living as a journalist.
The degree of uninformed commmentary all over the place means that few people *do* have a good handle on what's going on. From what I can get from reading this guy's archive, he tends to hobnob with CEOs/upper management of tech companies, who naturally are going to happily feed him whatever line they think will best manipulate him. He isn't going to sit down and start reading through legal code.
So, is he uninformed and parrotting BS? Sure. On the other hand, are *most* people involved? Sure. The only people that I'd really claim to know what's going on are in IBM's legal team -- and those folks, beside having an obvious bias, take the approach of not saying anything that might be wrong. Lawyers are conservative about making statements. Journalists, on the other hand, need to make impressive announcements and insights on a constant basis. Does this mean that accuracy suffers? Sure. But if it didn't, they wouldn't get paid.
I agree that anyone at this point that's worried about using Linux because of SCO is pretty much either uninformed or awfully paranoid. I've keept a reasonably close eye on groklaw and other parties involved -- and I've never even coded on the sections in question or taken any civil law courses. I think that Slashdot *was* overeager to pronounce SCO full of hot air, but at this point, they really have no case against Linux users. There are so many counterarguments that could be used if even one failed that would blow away their argument that it isn't even funny.
IBM shareholders might be a bit worried about the continuation of AIX, which is more at risk than Linux, but honestly, I still wouldn't lose any sleep over it if I had a bunch of AIX deployments. Given the data that's come up from Novell and IBM, and how weak SCO's arguments have been once in the light, this case shouldn't have been a worry for at least a month or two now.
May we never see th
Certainly it's complicated but not beyond human reason to comprehend. Let's take just one line:
IBM's AIX has a different question mark over it. Nonetheless it's a question mark
This says one thing loud and clear: You've never worked with IBM on a project. They're as Death Star about IP as anyone I've ever worked with. And that was WAY before the SCO business ever surfaced. That's not even going into detail on the merits of SCO's case. But he didn't have to, so neither do I.
weigh the total cost of protection versus the risk of being sued by SCO (or maybe someone else).
Spoken like a true low-level pussy. You can get sued these days whether the other side has a case or not. Some cases are just to keep you distracted while one of their partners moves in on your deal. If the threat of litigation puts you off these days, you might as well consign yourself to a life of being someone else's bitch because that's all you're going to be. If the other side knows that's all it takes, they'll make it a reality.
And before anyone steps up and says that's easy for me to say because I've never been sued...screw you. I've been through it twice already. Litigation is just another business tool today so learn to deal with it. Best thing you can do is keep your professional liability insurance paid up and learn how to find the "oh, shit" lawyers (they're not even always the most expensive). The ones who send out a letter and the other side goes, "Oh, shit, not them." Just the name on the letterhead can make you a bigger pain in the ass than you're worth. I spend time down at the courthouse talking to lawyers, ask them who they hate to see coming. After a while a handful of names will surface. They're usually bastards, but they're your bastards. It makes a difference. Lot of firms just run up the charges and don't really do the work. You have to find the ones that actually work for their 300/hour. Talk to the court house people. Who files the most appeals when they lose, those people are motivated to win.
Plan for it. Budget for it. It's going to happen even if you're St. F'ing Peter. You'll get through it.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I recall OpenUNIX (UnixWare 8) being sold as the great melding of UNIX with Linux. I know they have a lot of GNU userland tools (always have; I hit the Skunkware site regularly when I had to work on OpenServer 5) but part of me thinks they tried to meld some kernel stuff as well. They claim that their Linux compatibility stuff in the kernel is cleanroom, has anyone checked? People can ask for specific code modules instead of the general fishing expedition that SCO is doing.
Wouldn't that be a wonderful (temporary) bug in slashcode, too? I am willing to implement the bug myself, just to see what grubs are found beneath the rocks...
Pretty please with lots of sugar Cowboy Neal et al?
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
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
...whereas Enderle's about a minus 7 and Didio's about a -3i. And yes, I do mean "i" in the mathematical sense, since Planet Laura seems to have left the solar system. Not sure how to rate Daniel Lyons, his bias is obvious and unforgiving but mild and he hasn't said much lately. Maybe a -4.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The whole notion that an end-user would owe SCO anything (even if it was there code) is ridiculous. By way of example - if you buy a car and it turns out that it was stolen ( assuming you reasonably had no idea) you have NO LIABILITY - you do have to give the car to its rightful owner (ie stop using it) but you dont owe the real owner the depreciation that occurred while you were using it. Because it would be UNFAIR, since you bought it in good faith. So if Sco establishes owenrship (which it apparently cant), then users would have to cease to use it. THATs IT - the only possibility (and it isnt really one) is that by notifying users today, some crazy judge could say that from the time you were otified till the time you stopped using it you are liable. Thats not likely because the notice from SCO has provided no details that really provide notice that SCO is the owner. In addition even if that worse case senario occurred the UPPER limit on damages has been established $149 a year per useage. And even that wouldnt be likely since SCO's pricing is arbitrary and no Judge would rule 60 lines is worth $149 - unless it was some trade secret - which has been dropped. The whole end-user thing is a red-herring since no owner of IP is going to sue end-users, for the above reasons and the reason why majority of Software Companies dont offer indemnification, is b/c they dont want the nuisance of every ambulance chaser making a run at their very deep pockets
Don't say I didn't tell you so when IBM *SETTLES* with SCO so that it appears to korporate amerika as the only "legitimate" Linux source.
I urge Slashdotters to not be blinded by their idealism and realize that this is a corporate battle for shareholder interests. What's "right" has absolutely no fucking thing to do with this argument. None of the parties involved are motivated by "rightness"; they are motivated by profit.
Make sure if you support any effort to fight SCO that it's contingent on ** NO SETTLEMENT ** !!
This seems to imply that idemnification is something out of the ordinary. After all, acording to Berlind, one should be leveraging one's buying power to get it.
So the question that I get from this is - who offers idemnification as a standard part of their license? Which OSes are "safe"? How "safe"? And were they always like that or is this something they jumped on when SCO began its campaign?
David Berlind argues as if his reasoning would apply to all
the three SCO court cases on the roll. It does not.
The first case (IBM) is based on allegations of contractual
infringements. And the alleged infringements rely on a new
definition of derivative work: since AIX is a derivative of
Unix System V any components extracted from AIX (whether
they have common code with UNIX System V or not) are a
derivative. Accordingly, IBM's contributions to Linux out of
AIX are a violations of SCO' rights. Or so they hope.
The second case (RedHat) is a request for a declaratory
judgment that RedHat distro does not violate SCO copyrights.
SCO is trying to have the case dismissed but in this respect
will certainly fail. When the case really starts, the only
way for SCO to avoid defeat is to show that their copyrights
have been infringed: they have to show common code between
their Unix and RedHat's Linux. They will pass.
Finally, the only case where Berlin's cogitations apply:
Novell vs. SCO. The current case is actually about slander
of title and as such will be dismissed. But it will
resurface quickly as a contractual dispute and there indeed
the judge will have to decide whether SCO bought the
Brooklin bridge.
In between, Berlin manages to call Linux an unauthorized
close: meaning what, who should have authorized it, on the
basis of what? He does not clarify any issues in the SCO
saga but throws up a new question: is he naive or dishonest?
While I won't call this article the most well-informed or well-written ones, let's see, isn't this a good executive summary?
The suits upstairs say
" You tell me SCO won't win? But what do we do if it does?"
With Tux wearing a suit, these are the kind of questions that have to be answered. Risk assessments and "what-if" scenarios need to be thought out. SCO will lose, but companies may need to make plans to present to boards (though they may never get around to doing anything about it).
btw, I am not a conspiracy theorist, but this is an impressive F.U.D. program. I could almost swear Redmond was behind this.
This may sound off-topic at first, but please bear with me.
The logic in the article reminded me of the Y2K situation. At the time I was Chief Financial Officer for a mid-sized non-profit organization, and I was approached repeatedly by attorneys and accounting firms with the same argument: there MIGHT be a problem, and if you cannot show that you took appropriate steps to deal with it, you could be held negligent.
Of course, what they wanted was for me to hire them to perform an audit of our computer systems and hardware, in exchange for a hefty fee. Instead, I simply pointed out that I was better qualified, and better positioned, to evaluate our risk exposure than any lawyer or outside accountant, and that I had already done so to my own satisfaction. (I did keep records.)
Similarly, IT managers running Linux should be quite competent to determine what risk they face from SCO without the need for legal counsel. Most of them, obviously, have decided that the risk is not sufficient to demand indemnification.
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.
... and that license allows them to redistribute it without fee, to anybody.
He ignores the fact (admitted by SCO) that SCO distributed Linux under the GPL. That's one very good reason why his article is hogwash. Many people already have an SCO license
So despite the author's attempt to sound serious, balanced, objective, responsible, etc: he's just another FUD merchant.
If they lose the Novell suit, they don't have rights to UNIX they can enforce against others. If they lose the IBM suit, their wierd legal theory under which IBM "contaminated" Linux with IBM-developed code to which SCO has contractual rights goes away. And if they lose the Red Hat suit, there's an injunction against them preventing them from sueing end users.
So quit worrying.
I read that article in disbelief as the author continued to suggest that *end-users* needed indemnification from lawsuit. He even compared it to buying a car that contained some sort of unlicensed patented technology as though using something that you bought leaves you open to legal liability. Has this *ever* happened? What complete and utter horseshit!
At *most*, the "indemnification" that a company or end-user would require would be some sort of guarantee that, should they be required to stop using any part of Linux, an alternative would be available. I think the weakness of SCO's case and the response of the community has already allayed those fears.
In fact, that's the entire reason for using Open Source as opposed to closed alternatives. Everyone knows that, should just about *any* part of Linux or any other Open Source project be encumbered, a suitable replacement will be found.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
I note something that didn't seem to get mentioned it in the article about indemnification. That is, Novell has dredged up an official AT&T interpretation of a particular paragraph-in-the-contract.
I think that this disputed paragraph is the foundation upon which SCO is basing 99% of its claims. What I most seriously wonder is, "OK, suppose the judge gives SCO full rights to Unix. But most of the Unix contracts out there are based on an AT&T contract, and AT&T has provided a specific interpretation of a critical paragraph. Can SCO change the interpretation of this particular paragraph, JUST because they now own Unix?"
What I think is that those who obtained those AT&T-type contracts will argue that they are operating under the AT&T interpretation, which they were contractually allowed to do when they signed those contracts!
I do not think that the judge will grant SCO the right to arbitrarily alter the interpretation of the disputed paragraph in those contracts without some sort of advance notice -- and no such notice was given (just lawsuits). The net result is that, for example, IBM may have to STOP moving AIX and Dynamix code into Linux, but that all previously-moved code will be "grandfathered".
For Linux, that net result means that SCO can be ignored, and no indemnification nor insurance need be paid to anyone.
It seems like what people are most worried about is the unlikely situation in which SCO's claims hold up in courts, and theyfore somebody's going to have to pay. For those who have billion dollar businesses on the line, even a slight risk of something this huge still has to be accounted for.
The odds of SCO's success at this point are hard to compute. It's not quite zero yet, as much as we'd like it to be. When you multiply those odds by what's at stake for a business with deep pockets, you end up with a pretty sizable sum that the business most likely will be willing to part with as an insurance premium for somebody else to assume the risk.
Gotta wonder if there's any betting window in Vegas that's trading the odds on SCO doing anything...
It's also shrewd for Red Hat to sue SCO. After all, Red Hat could have left it too IBM and Novell to fight the battle for them. Red Hat, however, knows lawsuits and SCO are all about the Benjamins. By joining the fray, Red Hat forces SCO to hire even more high-priced lawyers.
Ultimately, Berlind may be right about Red Hat being a canary in the Linux coal mine, but with its stock price up 200% in the past year, its singing quite nicely.
#include <ianal.h> //But I read a lot of Groklaw
I can't imagine any legal theory under which such a suit wouldn't be summarily dismissed, and I wouldn't be surprised if the dismissal were with predudice and possibly even sanctions against the filer. Of course, given the RIAA's success at terrorizing people for downloading music (not distributing it) such a theory may somehow exist.[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
OS/2 was considerably more user-friendly than MS-Windows 3.1, not to mention incomparably more consistent. And set against any 3.X/9X/ME version of MS-Windows, it never crashed. It only lost points because it was different to the DOS-based abominations which had gone before.
Then we get to MS-Windows 95-ish and the advent of the "short cut" AKA symbolic link - which breaks if you move the target object - not so with OS/2's equivalent.
After that we can go on to discuss relative esoterica like efficiency and programmability (contrast REXX against COMMAND.COM, for example). MS-Windows was just so totally outclassed in technical terms that it was beyond funny - in some ways it's still outclassed even though development on OS/2 has essentially been frozen for five years.
OS/2, however, was hobbled by Microsoft and jilted by IBM for marketing reasons. Politics betrays another fine soldier. As usual.
Disclaimer: I went straight from MS-Windows For Workgroups 3.11 to Linux. I have no vested interest in supporting or promoting OS/2.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I agree.
the article is basicly superfluios verbage that is well written but says almost nothing of any substance.
One of the points that had me laughing out loud was this:
"A review of the company's quarterly 10-Q filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission reveals an increasing concern over SCO's legal actions, the risks they pose, and Red Hat's options and the potential consequences should the outcome favor SCO."
anyone who has a remote understing of what the risk portions of the 10-Q and other SEC documents means knows this is is total and absolute bullshit. publicly traided companies HAVE to account for any possible - percivable - source of threat to the future well being of the company, useally overstating those posible threats to the point of absurdity. I have yet to see a "alien abduction of key executive officers might harm our future revenus" clause in a 10-Q but I would'nt be surprised in te least to see it..
One of the options the article discusses is to pay insurance premiums to prepare for the coming great onslaught of software patent litigation against open software projects.
The European Union has published a study on patent litigation insurance in March 2003. You can find it on their page on the Community Patent.
That study says that all experiments with this kind of insurance have not been particularly successful and have failed to provide adequate cover at affordable premiums.
I don't know if insurance or indemnification schemes will solve the problems ahead. However, both seem to be aimed at sharing the burden of dealing with litigation risks. That should be the basic idea. Just as people work together to develop great open source software, people should work together to defend it against litigation risks.
See also this post on my blog.
Lenz Blog
Huh? He's saying that all forms of protection listed are both a)reasonably priced and b)could easily be a waste of money.
Um, thwap me with a wet noodle, but that seems contradictory.
Reading the article made my blood heat up because I am so pissed at SCO for what they are doing. But I think the reporter really did do a pretty even-handed job of addressing the indemnification issue alone (in spite of the above paragraph).
It didn't seem to me that he was really addressing whether or not SCO has a case, but the practical business decisions arising from their lawsuit.
In the end of course, SCO does not have a case and will not win any of their pending lawsuits.
...because in order to rule in favor of SCO the court would have to redefine "derivative work" in such a way as to create major problems for just about every piece of software out there.
Who would own Norton SystemTools? Who would own Netware? Who would own OSX? Who would own Windows?
If the answer to all of these questions was "SCO," would it be the end of the IT industry as we know it? Why isn't anybody indemnifying me against that?
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.