Slashdot Mirror
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.
You can replace it for free???
I thought Windows insurance was switching to Linux.
What's Linux insurance--switching to Mac OS X?
Thanks, Google!.
Seriously, folks.
Now we have insurance agents peddling their wares on Slashfdot?
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
That CSS file that blocks ads
I for one welocme our new State Farm Overlords!
how is that actually good for Linux. Isn't take a bit like pointing out all the security holes in windows it doesn't improve the OS's reputation. and from most of what i remember about SCO's attacks on code contribution have been shown to be wide of the mark
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
Uh... isnt this a little like somebody in a straw house thanking arsonist for burning other people's houses down just to prove they're flammable?
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
Heh. I can't even flamebait SCO anymore. Every bad thing that you could say about the organization has already been said.
One more cost to be added into 'independent' TCO studies funded by microsoft.
- We have an Strong and Clear in terms license.
- We have the code available.
- We have Lawyers all arround de world willing to defend GNU.
- Most developers have allways taken care of not violating copyrigth, and including only their code on the work they do
We have an implicit honor system, and it works. If someone do something wrong, we could listen the complain, isolate the coders and code compromissed, replace it with GPLd code, and apologies to the company the code has been stolen from.
All this SCO thing is just flamebait; don't pay more atention to them, and don't let them change the way this has allways been.
their attacks have turned a lot of attention to the possible Achilles' heel...
With Windows, when someone points out a possible Achilles' heel, people exploit it (with viruses, etc). Is it good to point out potential problems? Yes if 1) They can be fixed or 2) They aren't problems. It will make the beast stronger. However, if the issue, in this case code contribution, which is THE blood of OSS, is actually a problem and can't be fixed, then this whole OSS thing might take a deathblow. If that is the case, I'd rather people not focus on it.
In the end we have to trust people that submit code. Short of checking it against a database of known code (which doesn't help if they stole code from a proprietary source), there isn't too much we can do.
While I tend to agree with "there is no such thing as bad press," if the press kills OSS or Linux (which, in this case, I bet it won't), I'd rather SCO not have started anything. And if other people start to try to exploit OSS because of the possible Achilles' heel (with law suits, bills passed to limit OSS), we'll end up with tons of irritating front page posts on slashdot. We might even have to have a sub-catagory for the it so we can have user filters.
What if someone forks it?
FireBird Insurance?
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
... for my Windows servers. My last co. almost got burned by MS's code theft issues in SQL Server.
Of course, the premiums would be a stone bitch...
-----------
Love your country always, but respect your government only when it deserves it. -- Mark Twain
"SCO may actually be one of the best things to happen to Linux lately"
"company offering insurance against lawsuits like SCO's, who notably hired Bruce Perens and PJ of Groklaw fame"
Is it really "one of the best things" for Linux, or for lawyers? I didn't need to buy any "Linux insurance" before that SCO farce. Why should I be grateful?
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
In my head, insurance agents who are capitalizing on this FUD are on par with amublance chasers sitting in the ER waiting room. Maybe that's a little harsh though towards the ambulance chasers, because at least they are around potential clients.
Offering this kind of insurance only perpetuates the FUD that Linux/OSS/FS/etc are not safe. Maybe if they offered this as general purpose software insurance, rather than targetting open source, I'd be more understanding. But offering it only for open source software essentially sends the message that IP infringement is common in open source software, but never happens in proprietary.
-N
I've nothing to say here...
As long as you aren't stealing code for your open-source projects, you're fine. Someone like SCO can litigate till they're blue in the face, but as long as you didn't do anything wrong, you'll be fine. They can have all the billions of dollars they want, but money doesn't create evidence. If you need to get your court costs back, countersue.
..but I'm sure most people here are smart enough to realize this (I hope). The last thing we need is fucking "code insurance".
It's a shame that these people try to peddle their bullshit off other people's fears. You DON'T need this!!
Waiting for ad.doubleclick.net...
Hmmm... so you can insure yourself against the perils of using Open Source (like getting sued by SCO).
What I want is a Slashdot Karma Insurance.
(In fact I could use one right away now, since this gonna end up (-1, Offtopic) ^^; )
+++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
Just look what insurance has done to health care. The _last_ thing we need as a society is another aspect of our lives that is deemed neccesary to insure. On the whole, I beleive that insurance companies are some of the most exploitive organizations around, draining resources from society with very little positive return. At best, this is going to convince people to throw money away, at worst it is going to encourage frivolous lawsuits because the odds of payoff become higher, thereby making "OSS Insurance" a de facto requirement for running OSS and taking away one of its largest strengths.
Honestly, I'm amazed that more people don't view a company running around yelling, "Linux insurance! Protect yourself from the risks of Linux!" at least somewhat negatively.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
I dunno. In a perfect world, there shouldn't be a need for this kind of thing. But since we don't live in that world, this might have practical value.
My take on this is - it's a good thing if you are paranoid or a potential target. I don't understand why Linux end users are different from Windows end users in a liability sense - can someone point me to a good explanation of why my buying a Windows license suddenly frees me from potential legal trouble, whereas the GNU GPL somehow doesn't? Why isn't the author responsible in both cases? (Not a rhetorical question - I really would like an answer.)
Anyway, I'm not sure this lawsuit insurance is a bad idea no matter WHAT you do or what you use. Lawsuits are used like clubs against business opponents nowadays, and merit or justification isn't even of interest anymore. Perhaps an insurance setup where the insurance covers the costs of a defense up to $$$, but not the consequences of a guilty verdict, would be a good way for a lot of small companies to go. If they aren't doing anything wrong, and get their ass sued by $LARGE_COMPETITOR in order to put them out of business, the lawsuit coverage would let them put up enough of a fight to make trouble for $LARGE_COMPETITOR. If $LARGE_COMPETITOR had to do this for all the smaller competitive businesses they would go up against, it might start to be rather useless for them to try such methods.
Remember, lawsuit insurance in this scenario isn't about the merits of the case - it's about being able to resist bullying attempts by litigious bastards. If you have a good case, this would allow you to fight it, but wouldn't let scum insure their way out of the financial consequences of doing something illegal. In THAT capacity, I can see this being a good idea. And not just for open source software either.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
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?
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.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
I'm assuming by _Linux_ you are referring specifically to the kernel. Where your scenario fails to hold water is the fact that Linus and crew actually do check the code that gets submitted for the kernel. I don't see a johnny-come-lately with miracle code that works flawlessly on the first try getting something past them. In real life, YMMV
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
Insuring Linux, Thanks to SCO
In other news...
Insuring Cars, Thanks to Thieves
"There's an interesting article about the counter-reaction to thieves' attacks on cars, and how thieves may actually be one of the best things to happen to cars lately, because their attacks have turned a lot of attention to the possible Achilles' heel in the car locking process. Includes some good detail on a company offering insurance against thefts. This is a great news for every car owner."
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
It's building confidence in Linux. We look great, SCO looks like a bunch of jerks and bullies, possibly supported by Microsoft. It's showing that Linux is strong in the face of a full frontal assault, that it's not just a loose conglomerate of whimsical hackers, who'll just drop it when the going gets tough. It's commiting IBM and various other companies to the defense and support of Linux. It's providing a template and an example for future cases. After an initial wavering of faith in Linux, I'm sure we'll see a surge.
Hell, as long as the US Justice System doesn't drop the ball, the whole SCO issue is great for linux!
Also, the Delaware court ruled, in putting the Red Hat vs. SCO suit on hold, that the Utah court was deciding the copyright issue. Based on that precedent, copyright-related suits can be expected to go on hold until IBM vs SCO is decided. So SCO is a long way from being able to enforce copyright claims against anybody. They'd have to beat IBM, then Novell, then Red Hat. Only then would Linux users have anything to worry about.
The market has picked up on this. SCO tried a stock buyback scheme to boost the the price of their stock. That worked for only a week, and bumped the price up from 9 to 11 or so. It's back to single digits today, at 9.09 today and dropping. It was 16 back in February, and 3 a year ago, before all the lawsuits.