Slashdot Mirror
Contractors to Bear Burden if SCO Chases AU Govt
Peter writes "Contractors are set to bear the burden of SCO legal action if the company chases Australian Government departments. Apparently there are provisions in the Australian Copyright Act which allows the govt to assume IP rights then negotiate a "fair and reasonable" payment for those rights. This is in addition to contract provisions which state that contractors must accept liability for third party IP disputes."
"If legal action is taken against a Commonwealth department or agency through a dispute on third party software, the agency reserves the right to withdraw, leaving the legal battle -- including all costs incurred and all penalties applied -- to the contractor." ... then how many contractors are going to be willing to recommend Linux systems ...
This is supposed to be worrisome? HA
What this article actually says is:
Attention Aus IT departments: GO AHEAD AND BUY LINUX SOLUTIONS, IF THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS, OUR LAW SAYS IT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM!
Not to mention the fact that this only comes into play if
"Should SCO's claims on Linux be upheld in US courts."
No Australian government agency is going to "Negotiate" with SCO. They're beaurocrats, and given the decision between "Take Action" and "Pass the Hot Potatoe to Someone Else" no sane official is going to do anything but pass it back to the contractors.
It's not only the reasonable and intelligent thing to do, but for once, it's politically expedient.
All the article says, in essence, is:
There appear to be problems with using Linux in gov't, but by law, those problems belong to the contractors. Procurement agents: go right ahead, you're indemnified by federal law.
This is actually good news, although it depresses me how often my sig has been appropriate lately...
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
"Pass the Hot Potatoe to Someone Else"
Well you have learned, young Padawan
- Master Dan Quale
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
I'm an independant contractor, and when I sign my contracts (usually through a headhunter-type firm) there are provisions in my contract for assumption of IP violation risks and liability for my work. In other words, I agree to take responsibility for any and all IP violations that arise as a result of my work.
Normally this isn't a big deal, as the gist of these types of clauses is to prevent contractors from plagerising existing code or assuming full responsibility if they do. However, if you are a contractor who is in a position where you have to recommend a software product or hardware vendor, this SCO shit can be a huge black market for open source adoption.
A normal, independant contractor should not and will not assume this type of risk if they are smart. Even if they are sure that SCO's case is bunk (as I am). They probably will lose their contract regardless, and the cost to an independant contractor would be huge.
In other words, good luck finding contractors who willingly will reccommend that a company adopt Linux now.
Thankfully my wife is an IP lawyer, so I'm ready for a fight if need be, but I don't think most contractors are as lucky as me.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
Yes, but public companies can sugar coat it. Nowhere in SCO's SEC Filings does it say "IBM could, and most likely will, fucking destroy us!"
What's really unfortunate though, is that, after the dust has settled and its all over but the shoutin', the lawyers are very seldom ever held accountable for their actions.
If, say, it turns out that SCO is in fact in league with the devil, and that David Boies joined SCO's cause fully aware of any lies told thus far, "justice" should demand he be punished alongside Darl McBride. What will most likely happen, though, is that Boies will only get to jack his fees by about a million bucks or so.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.