Insuring Linux, Thanks to SCO

jtheory writes "There's an interesting article on Salon.com (free daypass available, ads, etc.) about the counter-reaction to SCO's attacks on Linux, and how SCO may actually be one of the best things to happen to Linux lately, because their attacks have turned a lot of attention to the possible Achilles' heel in the code contribution process. Includes some good detail on OSRM, a company offering insurance against lawsuits like SCO's, who notably hired Bruce Perens and PJ of Groklaw fame, and is doing their own extremely thorough analysis of the code and any possibility of improperly included code. The founder of OSRM also wrote a story called Why the Linux Community Needs Open Source Insurance on LinuxWorld." We've mentioned risk insurance before.

Comments

So this is basically what?

[LOL WTF OMG!!!!!!!!!]

A sort of "malpractice" insurance, where instead of a doctor's malpractice, it's that of the code-plagiarizer?

Or is it for protecting the Linux distributer that was unaware of said plagiarism.

(By the way, I'm not saying Linux contains plagiarized code ;) )

OpenScam

[MouseR]

OSRM, a company offering insurance against lawsuits like SCO

Cool.

Now, instead of paying juggernauts for their expensive software, you can pay expensive insurers to use free software!

What would america be without lawyers?

Why this is _BAD_ for Linux...

[kuwan]

This "Linux Insurance" by OSRM is really bad for Linux. As noble as the creators may think it is, the fact that it exists at all shows that SCO has been (somewhat) successful in their campaign to cast uncertainty on the legitimacy of Linux and its code base.

For example, let's say that I want to sell my boss on buying a bunch of Linux servers instead of Windows or Solaris servers. I tell him all the great advantages of Linux - stability, performance, low cost, etc. Then some Windows schmuck interrupts and says that Linux has legal problems. I say "no it doesn't" and explain how the SCO fiaSCO is just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. Then I go to explain that their is insurance that you can buy in case anyone (SCO or anyone else) tries to sue you.

After this my boss gets scared and thinks that there is legitimate risk involved with going to Linux. Then he thinks, "Why go with Linux and spend extra $$$ on insurance when I can just go with Windows or something else."

This whole insurance thing is just bad. It helps SCO to prove their point (that there is a problem with the Linux development process), makes Linux cost more than it should, and introduces the idea that risk is involved when using Linux.

Re:I hope this doesn't take off

[bruce_the_moose]

I beleive that insurance companies are some of the most exploitive organizations around, draining resources from society with very little positive return

While I can't claim to love insurance companies--institutions that plays with lots of money and produces little in the way of tangible products tend to spawn greedy bastards--you can point to some returns to society that they have made. Here's and example: Do you look for little tags or stickers that say "UL" on electrical devices you buy? You should. UL is Underwriters Laboratory, a lab sponsored by the industry (Underwriters) is in place to guarantee things like christmas lights won't burn your house down if you leave them on overnight. It's enlightened self-interest, of course, since if your house burns down the Insurance companies have to pay.

Oh, and having someone pick up the tab if your house burns down is probably a positive return to at least yourself, if not society.

I think OSS insurance is a good thing for this very reason: it means some institution actually thinks it's insurable. The way you make money selling insurance is covering things that are likely to NOT burst into flames.