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?
Seriously, folks.
- 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.
"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."
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.
Thanks, now I can RTFA. In doing so, it appears that the author did not do his homework particularly well, as both he and his sources seem to be thoroughtly confused on the issues.
Quote: "They sued AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler even though those companies didn't do anything wrong and acted in good faith," says Daniel Egger, a partner at the venture capital firm Eno River Capital. AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler simply purchased open-source software; they didn't write the code. But "because of a quirk in our legal system," Egger says, "you can be sued for using software when you did nothing wrong, just because some third party claims that they own part of that software or that the software infringes on their rights."
This is woefully uninformed. SCO sued neither Autozone nor DC for using Linux.
SCO's claim against Autozone arises from the fact that Autozone was using applications on SCO Unix and switched those applications from SCO to Linux in a very short time. The only way to do that, SCO claims, is by integrating the libraries from SCO Unix into Linux, which is a violation of the licensing terms for SCO Unix. SCO has no evidence that this happened other than the fact that Autozone switched over very rapidly, so they MUST have used SCO's libraries. Autozone and the consultant who did the switch both claim this is not the case, and it should be straightforward to demonstrate this in court.
The DC lawsuit arises because DC failed to return a certification of compliance. SCO sent out forms to everyone who has a license for SCO Unix and demanded that they certify that they were not using SCO code with Linux. Part of the license for SCO Unix says that they may demand such a certification of compliance.
So neither Autozone nor DC are being sued for "purchasing open source software." Both are being sued for violating the terms under which they licensed SCO software. Despite their many threats, SCO is suing their own customers, not Linux users. The case against Autozone seems extremely weak. The case against DC rests on a legal technicality that I'm not qualified to judge. If they do succeed in that case, however, it will have nothing to do with Linux.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
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."