Slashdot Mirror
OSRM Declares Linux Free of Copyright Violations
tmu writes "According to a recent press release, the Linux 2.4 and 2.6 kernels are free of any code that violate copyrights. OSRM, the new startup formed by Daniel Egger and including groklaw founder Pamela Jones, completed a 6-month review of all code in both kernels. They must be pretty confident of the results, because they're offering product liability insurance to both developers and users."
Insurance policies are always grouped into lots that allow the "law of large numbers" to come into play. That is to say, small numbers might go on a random walk, but within a large group the actual number of claims will always be reasonably close to the expected number of claims.
Sorry... an insurance company that's offering only one liability product that is either going to have claims from all customers or have no claims at all is not going to fly. Either they'll be pocketing all of the premiums, or the whole house of cards will colapse in more claims than they can ever handle. There's no middle case... either every user of Linux is going to end up owing big bucks to SCO, or none of them do.
$25,000 coverage for $250/year? Do we really need this? In three years time, we'd be paying more than the cost of SCO's unnecessary license for a minuscule amount of coverage that we don't need, because, as they themselves say, Linux is free of copyright infringements.
Peace and love, y'all
So they're offering insurance to people just in case they are wrong? Don't they have any faith in themselves? :)
In other news today, Darl McBride received a strange packet marked "code review", with a post-it note attached that simply read "PWNED"
Slashdot sucks
Their "insurance" is many times more expensive than SCO's licensing fees.
I have been pwned because my
I'm not quite sure an insurance policy from these people is worth as much as a SCO license, in that they're either selling policies that won't pay if SCO owns nothing, and they'll be overextended if it does turn out SCO owns something.
However, if you've got a PHB who's seriously thinking about sending his $699 per server into SCO... this may just be a company that you can use to fool your fooled-by-SCO PHB into sending money to the anti-SCO lawyers instead of the pro-SCO lawyers.
What about previous kernel releases i.e. 2.2. etc...
Perhaps they're backed up by another insurance company. Can anyone confirm this? Otherwise, I agree.
They seem fairly credible in their claim, as they have put their money where there mouth is. Of course, this review of the code may not affect a court ruling on the matter, as there are complicated technical issues involved in this case and they may not be in the scope of knowledge of some judges.
_____
Thank you.
I never saw this adequately answered on Groklaw. This is no different really than benchmarks or TCO studies. Show us your methodology, give us the name of an independant third party which conducted the review, and let us review the results. Coming from OSRM I consider this well meant but to be followed by a large grain of salt as they have a vested interest in the outcome. I believe Linux isn't tainted, but if you've combed through the code of Linux and several Unixen, I'd like to see it in black and white.
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
Groklaw's running a more detailed piece that gives more information than in the press release. This basically ammounts to a reporter reporting about herself, but that also makes it information straight from the source.
Most people think its SCO free already, and couldn't care less, but the insurance is a great thing. Just wondering, what is up with the SCO case? Haven't heard about 'em in a while now.
Help Fight SPAM today!
If it's so free of any copyright infringement, why do we need any kind of liability insurance?
Depending on the outcome of this case IP law suits could become much more plentiful. I think that open source software could become especially vulnerable. I have to agree that with you on your stance in regards to the SCO case. But I don't think that this type of insurance is completely without potential.
1. get lots of people to buy this insurance
2. sue everyone who buys it
3. they settle immediately and use the insurance to pay their licensing fees
4. insurance company goes bankrupt, but it doesn't matter, we've already got the cash.
I'm not sure how they can come to that conclusion without having access to the code which SCO is claiming that they have which was inapproprately added into the Linux kernels. Just what exactly did they do in their six-month process to prove that what SCO has behind door #3 isn't there?
Of course, SCO might turn out to have nothing but some farm animals behind door #3, and that outcome is more likely than not to be the one that comes out in the end... but really, what more is this group doing but just spreading counter-FUD about SCO's FUD?
Besides, if you take them at their word, then you don't need their insurance because you're exposed to no risk. They're basically offering a competive form of "SCO lawsuit insurance" that seems only about as strong as buying SCO's "license".
they might need a parachute soon.
Please send your nickels and dimes to the "Darl McBride this-is-not-hopeless-really fund".
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
I have noticed that they have not FILED any copyright infringement actions, despite their numerous allegations that Linux infringes on their copyrighted code and mentions of the rights of copyright holders in their legal pleadings and press releases. No matter how loudly they proclaim infringement of copyright, they aren't willing to use the appropriate federal laws (USC-17) to protect this supposedly infringed upon "IP". I wonder why.
If SCO has copyright material that has been infringed upon, they have to go to the INFRINGER (whoever has access to their code and copied it, meaning the code and not just a work-alike clean-room code, into the kernel) for damages. End users and unwitting publishers of infringing materials are not listed in USC-17 as liable for infringement. You can't get damages from a publisher if one author of a short story collection lied about the authorship, nor can you collect from the bookstores and purchasers.
If they have proof that Red Hat is distributing infringing material, they first have to notify RH what the infringing material is. As the innocently infringing publisher, RH has the chance to double check the material, and either remove it or check its pedigree dispute the infringing nature of it.
The only time a publisher can be nailed for damages is if the plaitiff can prove they knew, or could reasonable have been expected to know, that a work was copyright. This covers sleazy anthology publishers who don't bother to get permissions and pay royalties, and anyone stupid enough to accept a well-known work of fiction from anyone but the real author.
yeah, if they only offer this for the linux kernel, it won't fly. they need to insure other things as well -- other open source projects.
I find it rather humorous that this outfit is probably going to make more money off what's SCO's doing than SCO's itself.
After all, they only need to break $20K, and now they're doing better than Darl & Co.
This is hillarious. Darl's been huffing and puffing for a year trying to squeeze water out of a rock; now here comes OSRM, and before long they made more money essentially by betting that Darl's got nuthin!
So, until now Pamela Jones was doing a terrific job reporting on the obsurdities of SCO claims. Now, she started a company in whose best interest is for SCO and others like it to keep going as long as possible so that her little company can offer insurance. Is it just me, or did we just loose an unbiased source of law information.
Often with "regular" insurance companies, the insurance company itself gets insurance in case something catstrophic happens and it can't handle all the claims. In fact, I think it might be required by law for some things (but I'm not very sure about that). So if this company is backed by someone with really big bucks, that would be sufficient.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
And we all know SCO would never sue a customer...
I hate grammar Nazi's.
SCO has admitted to violating the copyrights of dozens of companies and hundreds of individuals on content probably worth hundreds of millions of dollars. They are now by far the biggest pirates ever. I think it's time of all of these copyright holders to contact SCO's ISP, xo.net, and demand that SCO's site be pulled down. To do this, you send by fax or paper mail to xo.net an identification of the copyrighted work that you believe has been infringed (specifying the portions that you claim), an identification of the material that you believe to be violating it, contact information for you and for SCO, the statement "I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above on the allegedly infringing web pages is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.", the statement, "I swear, under penalty of purjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.", and your signature. (Assuming that what google requires is what is mandated by law).
I'd enjoy the whole SCO fiasco if SCO spent the time before their case comes to trial shut off the internet for running a warez site.
sweet, but editors, dont post this under the SCO topic, this is a linux topic. Just because SCO is challenging the code, doesn't make every article linux-gpl-code related, related to SCO.
If SCO are successful with their actions against IBM, then they will be paid by IBM for the infringment. While not being based in the US, I'm pretty certain it would be the same there, in so far as they can't sue IBM for incurred losses and then attempt to sue innocent parties for the same losses. It just won't wash. Why won't media organisations, including Slashdot report this simple fact and put an end to all the hoop-la.
1. This is voluntary insurance. Don't want it? Don't get it.
2. This isn't targeted at users, who are not at risk in any case, so 95% of us can move on, nothing to see here.
3. This has nothing to do with the risks of Linux, for there is nothing wrong with Linux. Instead, it's about the fact that, as SCO showed, there are bad people who want to make trouble for FOSS and will use nuisance suits in order to do that. Sad but true, but let's at least look at the world realistically. We now have another tool to fight these losers.
4. If you are a kernel developer, or a big-pocketed Linux corporate user, and you think you could become a target of one of these nuisance suits, you now have a chance to get insurance against such. Voluntary. Don't want it? Don't get it.
5. Does this make you sad? Blame the bad people who want to cause trouble for FOSS, not the people who are stepping up to try to help.
If the kernel is free of copyright violations, why do we need insurance?
That's like saying "I guarantee there is no danger of flooding here. But I would be happy to sell you flood insurance."
Please help metamoderate.
my browser rapped it like this:
OSRM Declares Linux Free of Copyright
Violations
1) Read first line: "gasp! the GPL is invalid!"
2) Read second line: "sigh of relief"
I think you, like many people, are misreading the service being provided by this company. They aren't offering to have you pay into their banks so that if SCO comes a knockin' you can just roll over and pay them with money from OSRM. Rather, what they are providing is material aid to your company so that you can take SCO to court and fight the charges. Therefore, it is only likely to be providing this aid to a few companies at a time, and can likely get injunctions to slow down any other cases in which they are involved. So, it's relatively unlikely that they'll be asked to pay all the claims at the same time.
I think the more important point is that we shouldn't make the assumption that SCO will be the only SCO. Unless somehow magically all of its cases end in "There cannot possibly under any circumstances be any code in Linux that wasn't meant to be there," which is TERRIBLY unlikely not only because of the innate absurdity of the court ruling on the potential "ownership" of every line of code, including those not material to the case, but also because none of the cases actually deal with the IP except for the Novell and Red Hat ones, one of which says SCO doesn't really own the code to begin with. Simply put, no matter what happens, there is still a vulnerability with open source with so many contributors that someone will view it as an easy target for stock-pumping litigation.
In light of this, it's much more obvious why a company might be willing to shell out $100,000 a year to reduce their risk of having to shell out $Millions to pay for legal defense or $millions in settlement fees.
1) Declare Linux is safe, offer insurance 2) People pay insurance 3) CEOs of insurance place take in huge salaries 4) Someone claims ownership of part of linux 5) Insurance place goes bankrupt, screwing all of its clients. CEOs still rich. 6) ??? 7) PROFIT!!!
Karma: Excellent (fuck, even in the future moderation doesn't work!)
If I know PJ (and I don't), I don't think the purpose of this is to truly offer insurance. I think it's just to get the word out there that people in the know know this: SCO is full of shit. SCO has made a lot of waves by whining and litigating without showing a shred of proof, and they've even had companies like EV1 cave in and buy licenses just because they feat a lawsuit!
Since the government (SEC?), for whatever reason, is allowing this nonsense to continue, this company is fighting fire with fire and responding in tow: they are attacking SCO on the battleground they themselves defined: the media. They are standing up and saying "We've audited Linux cover to cover, and you, sirs, are full of it."
This is what we need. More news that gets the word out that SCO is an organization of extortionists who have learned to use the slow, inefficient, expensive legal system as a weapon.
To boil it down: SCO is metaphorically using the old "pretending the finger in your pocket is a gun" shtick, and OSRM is announcing "That's your finger, jackass."
I know that OSRM and you are both well meaning, though you might want to put a standard disclaimer in your replies that you are on the board. At any rate...
Is OSRM offering patent insurance? I didn't see that in the press release.
Peace and love, y'all
1 - It is very common for insurance companies to buy re-insurance from other insurance companies and spread the risk that way. I don't think it is a problem that these guys have only one line.
2 - We all know that this insurance is unnecessary. It isn't for us. It is for risk averse PHBs. It seems as much like a PR stunt as a viable business. The FUDmeisters dared the Linux community to indemnify the end users. A couple of companies rose to the challenge and here is yet another response. Having said that, if they can make a buck well, good for them.
As a thousand others have observed: check the Windows EULA.
"Who ya goin to call? FUD-busters!" (ok now I'm getting silly)
I think this insurance could be a great deal for anyone who ever entered into a contract with SCO. These parties can set aside the notion of all cases will have the same outcome. SCO can't sue everyone. Not only do you get the $25,000 dollar protection you might be able to reach legal connections that could keep you out of the fray longer than SCO will exist.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
...
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I would like to buy your rock.
For those that are saying the insurance ends up costing more than SCO's licensing... I'm pretty sure SCO's license fees are for one copy of Linux, not all the copies you want.
I think they're offering insurance for a company, not per copy of Linux you're using. Hence if you're a big company using 500+ copies of Linux... $250/year is nothing compared to the $300k licensing fee charge SCO could try to hit you with.
As long as they have meta-insurance, or Linux isn't the only thing they insure, then even if the house of cards collapses, nobody who buys pays a dime of litigation fees for copyright violations. I don't expect it to happen anyway.
Well done. First post, on topic.
Sure I'll give my money to them like I gave my hard earned 699$, money to SCO, then I'll be sure to never be sued and I even have an insurance to protect me, so I can continue to develop on a free as in free beer operating system.
Earn more money to give to another insurance compagnie who will get sued, that will counter sue...
Man, when this madness will end.
It's funny how I make sense to others and not myself...
Basically the entire SCO vs. Linux affair is Microsoft using a front organisation to attempt to destroy their strongest competitor. Because this competitor is not a single company, but a loose collection of individuals connected by a large network, Microsoft can destroy Linux only by either destroying the network itself or by using a custom-crafted law to prevent any company from using Linux openly. The internet is too big to destroy now so they are threatening to destroy any company that switches from MS to Linux by endlessly expanding legal fees.
Let's not forget that Bill Gates was a master poker player. He's using the threat of an endless series of raises (Microsoft's lawyers disguised as SCO vs. the lawyer's of the target company).
No one in their right mind would play poker like this against the richest man in the world. It is impossible to win because he will always out raise you.
Linux must develop a different strategy against Microsoft/SCO.
we figured this out last year.
Ban Reality TV!
The bit I would be interested in is if I was, say, running an IT services company, providing and managing several Linux servers for clients, would I be able to take out the insurance if I was distributing the disputed code?
This might be a cheap way for the smalltime business to mirror the indemnity offered by the likes of HP/Compaq.
The last few weeks Darl et. al have been bashing PJ as someone who's funded by IBM. We've all thought this was some paranoia generated by SCO to diminiscule PJ's efforts.
But now she is going to run a business that is based on these efforts. In effect, isn't her integrity now affected by the "bottom line." Darl's paranoia machine now has a leg to stand on.
Not that I care, but... You know.
No, the correct analogy would be more like this:
"I guarantee there is no natural danger of flooding here, but there are rustlers out there going around causing floods and if you want to protect yourself, try this."
If I read the article correctly this is not a per cpu protection license. SCO wants to lighten your pocket book by $699/per CPU. This coverage is a lump sum with protection up to the amount x you feel comfortable. Big difference.
I guess that's what M$'s 50 million bought them. Another phantom 'cost' which they can use as an allegation against Free Software.
I reckon the 'public' won't see past the M$ spin, to appeciate that by its nature Free/Open Software is continually being checked for copyright infringements.
"OSRM Declares Linux Free of Copyright Violations"
Does OSRM have any more credibility in the court's eyes or SCO's eyes than the thousands of Linux users who have been saying the same thing for almost a year?
What should I do with my $699? Should I:
A - Give it to SCO
B - Buy Linux Insurance
C - Spend it on beer and porn
User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?" /tmp or the installer will dump core. After the installer is done, edit /etc/X11/XF86Config and add a section called "GL" and put "driver nv" in it. Make sure you have the latest version of X and Linux kernel 2.6 or else X will segfault when you start. OK, run the Quake 3 installer and make sure you set the proper group and setuid permissions on quake3.bin. If you want sound, look here [link to another obscure web site], which is a short HOWTO on how to get sound in Quake 3. That's all there is to it!"
Zealot: "Oh that's easy! If you have Redhat, you have to download quake_3_rh_8_i686_010203_glibc.bin, then do chmod +x on the file. Then you have to su to root, make sure you type export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 but ONLY if you have that latest libc6 installed. If you don't, don't set that environment variable or the installer will dump core. Before you run the installer, make sure you have the GL drivers for X installed. Get them at [some obscure web address], chmod +x the binary, then run it, but make sure you have at least 10MB free in
LOL, nice try - (why am I even bothering to answer? oh well, must be bored I guess)
I remember when I bought the quake 3 arena boxed set for linux... IIRC that was back in 2000 - The drill went like this:
Insert the cd in my redhat 6.2 system, and when the file manager came up a second later with the CDROM, click on setup.sh, confirm the defaults with the gui installer that pops up, click OK and we're good to go. fraggin folks on the internet half an hour later.
Things haven't really changed that much - like the other day when I inserted the ut2004 cd in my fedora core 1 system, clicked on setup and was playing ut2004 a few minutes later.
...they compared code from the wrong non-linux kernel.
I mean, everyone knows the code-base for linux 2.6 is directly stolen from the Windows 2.1 leak. Well, all the good code anyway.
I propose a third-party be selected to go over every line of windows 2.1 code, and linux 2.6. Once all the common code has been found, I'm confident the open source community will gladly dump it from the linux code-base, and basically start from scratch.
At last, a reason to create a better linux.
PJ did not start this company, and the company is about more than SCO, and PJ will be as glad as the rest of us when SCO is no more. The sooner the better. But as SCO showed, there are nuisance suits coming, from more than SCO. What's wrong with another tool to fight what's coming, even after SCO is gone?
No one needs this. Don't waist your money.
Why is this even an issue ? SCO had / has? Linux available for any/everybody under GPL so ? They can't take it back ! Maybe against some company that hasn't given Linux based systems and complains of "stolen code" but SCO ? SCO may have something against ( their own ? ) developers but users - I don't think so, otherwise we ( yes, I use Windows sometimes ) would be sued with MS - think about that, paying those $$$$ MS has paid lately - and no user ever got sued, why would Linux users ???
Let's start a fund to buy SCO's "intellectual property" when all this litigation eventually drives them into bancruptcy.
The OS community playing IP vulture doesn't seem like too bad an idea. SCO does have some code that could be bought and GPL'ed, and the company isn't gonna be worth much a year from now. Let's pool.
Email the money to me for now;)
HHOS
OSRM wants $30,000/year from businesses for $1,000,000 coverage.
Peace and love, y'all
When did PJ claim to be unbiased? (Maybe my back was turned.)
Why is it necessary that Groklaw be unbiased? All that is necessary is that the information be accurate.
Hey dude - Pamela is on our side. I think I'll clink a couple of glasses together and drink a couple of toasts to her.
There cannot possibly under any circumstances be any code in Linux that wasn't meant to be there," which is TERRIBLY unlikely not only because of the innate absurdity of the court ruling on the potential "ownership" of every line of code.
I think a ruling stating that there is no difinitive evidence that there is offending code in linux and that all the code in Linux belongs in the public domain would not be unreasonable.
Linus wrote the kernel, everything else is subsidary and fluid. Linux as a whole can not be held responsible for other aspects as they were checked as well as posible.
The courts DO NOT hold organizations specializing in the public good to the same standard as companies which specialize in profit.
There is no conflict of interest between what OSRM is doing and what Groklaw is about. OSRM is much larger than the SCO issue -- it's about all the nuisance lawsuits yet to come. Groklaw is much more than about SCO -- it's about debunking legal FUD about FOSS. Those are complementary roles, and there ain't nothing wrong with that.
Yes, but the original poster does have a point here. Insurance does work due to the laws of large numbers and just one judgement in SCO's favor will likely cause the probability of all outcomes to shift enormously in SCO's favor, meaning that the insurance companies no longer have a profitable enterprise.
I'm not sure any company or group of companies would (or could) bear that reinsurance risk, however miniscule the possibility of it occuring might be. Remember, judgment isn't about right or wrong, but what is determined in a court of law.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
Others have stated this already, but just to clarify: all insurance companies reinsure their policies, and it goes especially for areas that tend to be all-or-nothing.
Take a southern California or Tokyo-region real estate insurance company - they're in the same kind of boat. One big earthquake and they are up a very narrow creek with nary a paddle in sight. So what they do is insure their claims in turn in other companies; preferably companies that have little or no other exposure to the same risks. And of course, thiscompany would be a reinsurer for other comapnies as well.
For the risk-taking company, it is a way to dilute risk; rather than, as you say, have either a huge windfall or a total disaster every year, you try to arrange for a reasonable profit every year, rather than just on average.
For the reinsurer, this is another way to dilute risk, and get in on an area in which you have no expertise of your own; from this perspective, the spread between what the company pays you and what they take in from the original insurees is the payment they get for being the expert in the area so you don't have to. A northern European insurance company does not have much in-house expertise on north American earthquakes or their precise effect on real estate holdings, and they would not attract enough business to make it worthwhile, but by reinsuring a California company they get into that business, while relying on that company to do a far better risk assessment than they could do themselves.
The problems occur, of course, if enough things (like natural disasters) happen in a short enough time frame; that can bring _every_ insurance company into trouble, even companies that at first glance have nothing to do with it. You may see your car insurance rise 20% because of flooding in south China, a hurricane off the coast of Florida and a medium-scale earthquake in Hokkaido in the same year.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
great... this goes to show how reliable news on /. is... one of the people who "looked through every line of code in linux" has time to post here.
The same reasoning that makes insuring against this sort of thing difficult would also, it seems to me, make reinsurance difficult to get.
Reinsurance is appropriate when a risk is insurable, but more capital is needed. Here there's some question regarding whether the risk is sufficiently appealing to (re-)insurers as a business proposition, especially when part of that risk is made up of potential defense costs and SCO, as we all know, is rather litigious.
It adds more (voluntary) cost to Linux. My employer swore off using any software that was free (with the exception to Adobe Acrobat reader). In fact, he was disappointed when I installed Gimp on my workstation, so he bought me a copy of Photoshop (which I hate) instead. When I ask what the big deal was, since I was happy to use the free alternatives, he said, "We try to avoid free software whenever possible. We don't want it interferring with our other applications." The quality of the software doesn't matter - he seemed to be against the idea of free (as in beer) software in general. Maybe he thought it was communistic, I dunno. It would be easier to sell him RedHat with a big support contract and an insurance policy than it would be to sell him a burned image.
"Costs less than Windows? Must be crap!"
I'm waiting for the day he finds out I loaded Firefox and Thunderbird on my workstation. What can I say - I'm a web developer. I need Firefox!
OT: Why can't you draw rectangles in Gimp?
yeah, I have to second that. Although I ran into a little trouble with my 4 meg video card, I was able to get it running pretty easily.
/tmp wouldn't likely be an issue.
A few things to note to the flamer:
1) OpenGL.org is the 'obscure web site' you are looking for.
2) 99% of the people who would be playing quake on a linux box installed linux with one large partition, so space in
3) unless your browser is retarded, you shouldn't have to chmod +x an installer.
4) All you really have to do to the XF86Config file is enable OpenGL, and whatever video card driver you likely needed anyway.
Yeah, I've had bad days on linux too, but quake was an easy one. Now, converting SQL tables from a proprietary SQL server running on SCO unix, passwords from a solaris yp box, onto linux, and then passing FTP through an ipv6 vpn with two firewalls on either side, thats a more interesting day.
He's like this badass anime samurai... just sits there and growls something wise every once in a while :)
Anyone who's been following the SCO/IBM court proceedings on Groklaw can see where the case is headed, I would not expect they would have too much trouble finding someone to provide reinsurance.
"...what could either be a profitable new market niche or a spectacular new scam: open source insurance..."
IMHO if it were $250/yr contributing to a legal defense fund, I'd go for it.
OTOH, If it's $250/yr to fund payouts, perhaps I should start looking if I have any IP in Linux that I can collect royalties on. :-)
At any rate, I hope one of your offerings is $250 for a legal-defense fund to fight such lawsuits instead to pay for them to go away.
There is a good joke about such kind of insurance:
A company calls insurance agent to get an insurance quote.
- What are your risks?
- We don't know
- How much your company costs?
- $10M
- OK, send them in.
In this case the cost of insurance will probably be equal to SCO price.
MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
So who is the reinsurance intermediary and who are the underwriters?
I see this as a start to offsetting the corruptness that people can use the courts for. The courts will never be 100%, they can't be. It is a manmade entity. As such, man can always find a way to subvert it.
The efforts of OSRM are a way to open the examination of IP laws and defunct lawsuits to a distributed community effort. If they can make a little green on the way, I say good for them. They have the right idea about using the many eyes concept to keep people honest. The dishonest ones that persist, have to stand up to severe scrutiny.
This could even be the start of a wave of community efforts that serve the common good. I see nothing wrong with this.
a few minutes to install ut2k4???
Thats how long it took me to just change the cds! all 5 of them!
---- Design. Invent. Cheese.
RTFA shows that they're shopping around for reinsurance companies.
Do you know what reinsurance is?
What happens is that OSRM will insure FooCo for, say, $10 billion. Of that, OSRM only covers up to $1M. Most claims are going to be in that small range. Small claims are covered by FooCo, who has a $5k deductible on their policy. (FooCo will have very high premiums with such a low deductible.)
OSRM sells the rest of the liability off to reinsurance companies in various tiers. Reinsurance A covers the next $19M. Reinsurance B covers the next $80M. Reinsurance C covers the last $9 billion.
Let's say FooCo loses a liability lawsuit to SCO. (Won't happen, but we're in la-la land even talking about liability for Linux, so play along.) The judgment is for $25 million, and FooCo decides not to appeal, because they're covered!
Out of the check FooCo writes to SCO, $5k comes from FooCo themselves, and the other $24,995,000 comes from OSRM.
But before OSRM writes that check, they get a check from Reinsurance A for $19 million dollars. OSRM also gets a check from Reinsurance B for $4,995,000. OSRM covers the remaining $1M themselves -- that's OSRM's deductible. The judgment has to be for over $1 billion before Reinsurance C even gets involved; it wasn't in this imaginary wet dream stolen from Darl's happiest hour, so Reinsurance C does nothing.
So OSRM is only out $1M, minus the premiums they paid to Reinsurance A, B, and C.
So that's how it works. OSRM's little press release today is to help attract reinsurance companies -- to show them how safe their investment is. ("Hey, it's FREE MONEY!") OSRM will still get customers, no matter how safe Linux is, because most businesses live by the motto "Cover Your Posterior."
You're exactly right. An individual would be better off maxing their liability insurance and getting umbrella insurance with a better liklihood of being successfully defended. I have personal and my company has liability insurance (personal is 1 million I think with the umbrella and company is 5 million). It's more pricy than $250 but I get more coverage (significantly more).
The first thing any business needs to do is cover its ass in this very sue-happy environment. Did you see the article about the lady suing Coor's because they market beer and her stupid ass kid killed himself drunk driving 90mph into a pole? How about personal responsibility? There are consequences to actions in this world, unfortunatly a consequence of doing business is you have significantly greater odds of getting sued over bullshit the longer you're in business.
Linux is not public domain, Linux is licenced under the GNU GPL, but all contributors to Linux keep their copyrights. So Linux being placed in the public domain would NOT be a win. now saying that the code in Linux apears to be properly contributed would be.
That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
Who else is gonna sue? Except for Novell, the Unix copyright holder, I can't think of anybody. :^)
Point of "reinsurance" is to distribute the risk. If that isn't really happening, there's no point in doing it.
Put it this way: If BigInsurCo is willing to provide reinsurance for this deal, why wouldn't they just sell Linux Insurance themselves and cut out the middlemen?
The whole idea behingd insurance (like any biiz) is to make money. The insurance folk just do this by selling risk reduction. They then get reinsured by other companies. In effect you can think of the insurance companies providing this Linux service as just brokers since if there are claims, they won't be paying the whole sum directly.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Their "insurance" is many times more expensive than SCO's licensing fees.
Well, if you had bothered to read the article, you'd see that the insurance is for developers, not users.
SCO's licenses are for *END USERS*.
So there's really no point in comparing the two now, is there?
Because BigInsurCo knows how to evaluate risk, but doesn't know anything about Linux?
Because, to BigInsurCo, it is too small an operation to bother dealing with the details by themselves?
Because OSRM seem to be offering more than just insurance (such as access to their IP lawyers)?
On the other hand, isn't accepting money to do this taking advantage of the FUD that people already have?
Another thing to consider is that the linux legal defense fund setup up by OSDL has already raised $3 million
I think people are finally starting to realise that they are nutcases.. 5 days ago their stocks were 11 days, now they are 8.. their stocks are dropping faster and faster.. if the drop continues at this rate, they will be bankrupt within a month..
;)
The best thing is that they have killed any chances of anyone buying SCO products again.. Because why would you spend money on a product that is in a very high risk position, from a company obviously going bankrupt.. And now that they examined it to ensure theres no stolen code, it leaves them with no income because no one will buy a license now that they are sure that we didn't steal anything.
Lets bet on how long until they go bankrupt.. I'm betting 2 months
Well, nowadays I have a p4-2800 with a gig of RAM - so, the install went pretty quickly...
I think Ingvar Kamprad looks like a nice enough guy to play poker with...??
Oh, did you mean the second richest guy? That Bill dude?
Important info:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
http://dieoff.org/synopsis.htm
http://www.peakoil.net
OSRM Declares Linux Free of Copyright Violations
Whoa, they can do that?? Well, hell...
I, DeadVulcan, declare that Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction.
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
I thought the purpose of insurance was to turn random unpredictable costly expenses in your lifetime into small, fixed, periodic payments.
If the numbers are done properly, the amount of money you will pay in your lifetime to this cause is equal to the amount of money you will pay in premiums, but you can plan for paying premiums. In exchange for this convenience, the insurer collects slightly more money to cover operating expenses and so that they can turn a profit on their promise. Due to the economies of scale, it may actually be cheaper to go with an insurance company in spite of their overhead costs.
But anyway...
Insure Linux against intellectual property violations? Lets apply the formula:
Number of dollars that I plan to pay fighting off intellectual property claims on Linux: 0.
I guess I can pass on this kind of insurance.
At least now you get choices about how you waste your cash: OSRM or SCO.
If SCO wins a single case in court about copyright violations, what's the point of cashing in your insurance to fight a battle that's already lost? And if SCO loses a single case in court about copyright violations, how can they go after someone else for the same (now non-valid) copyright violation?
My guess is nobody will really buy this insurance except those, like OSRM itself, who just want to make a statement. The real announcement here is that an audit of the Linux kernel was completed and that somebody's willing to put some money where their mouth is.
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
They will turn around and spread the risk (and the profits). Many entities will be absorbing the risks. The more Linux is found to be non-infringing, the more will be willing to stand in the money line (and the lower the retruns...). If a judgement is ever made, many will be paying into it. While your observation is statistically correct, is does not consider the standard business methods used in the insurance industry.
SCO's license doesn't grant you a blanket indemnity -- just a guarantee that *they* won't sue you.
:-)
PJ is selling insurance that covers *any* infractions.
If a company has a choice between purchasing real insurance from PJ or "insurance" from SCO, they're almost certain to do better with PJ.
'course, I think the whole set of concerns is a lot of baloney -- open source types tend to be pretty careful about licenses -- but it's not as if you can claim that PJ has falsely inflated her product's merits -- she's been saying the same thing for quite a long time.
May we never see th
You're pretty close on this one. Although "regular" insurance companies aren't backed by big bucks, the HAVE big bucks. I work for one of the largest. A few years ago, when they posted a multi-BILLION dollar loss, the solution was "hmmm.... Don't throw away your paperclips next year." And they continued rolling out brand new workstations to every employee, and replacing all the servers.
Because reinsurance works in a different manner. It takes a while for the reinsurance claims to go around, and in the meantime you've got time to recoup your losses.
Lindows Steals Copyrighted Art and Promotes Porn
There are many companies that provide code review, based upon code matching.
Lindows Steals Copyrighted Art and Promotes Porn
"I think a ruling ... that all the code in Linux belongs in the public domain would not be unreasonable." ... to the same standards..."
Actually, this is highly UNreasonable.
Courts will NOT make any such statement, especially as a blanket "all the code...". Courts will only make statements specific to evidence, for example, proof that "these 2,337 lines right here were contributed to the public domain by Josy Programmer on such and such a date...".
Declaring a work to be public domain, if it is not certainly there already, would mean taking away someone's copyrights. If that person had money, or say, some kind of insurance, such a ruling would likely be appealed, and if evidence did not actually prove the code belonged in the public domain, the ruling would be overturned.
"courts do not hold
Copyrights are copyrights, no matter who owns them. That's how the courts sees it. Nonprofit or "public good" organizations DO operate by the same copyright laws, and the courts do NOT recognize privilege in this way.
When i first saw that story I always thought Coors should counter sue the mother for not properly teaching her son responsibilty as well as slander.
And yes, I actually believe Coor should sue her. It might teach parents everywhere to start taking responsibility for their own children.
Let's say they traced, in 6 months, every line of code that went thru the kernel's CVS back thru its committer, and back thru them to its submitter, supposedly its "programmer". How do they know of all those "programmers", none copied someone else's code? And that none submitted code written for hire by someone else, who therefore owns the copyright? While this is possible, 6 months is a long time to investigate every person from whom code came in the 10 year history of the kernel. It's a long time just to get feedback from every programmer, let alone audit their development processes feeding their commits. And if even one programmer didn't reply to their questions, which programmers are free to do, then that mystery programmer is a potential copyright breach.
I don't think there's code in the kernel with copyright that conflicts with the GPL. And it's incumbent on any competing copyright holder (*cough* SCO *cough*) to prove they have the controlling copyright. But OSRM seems to be placing an implausibly confident bet on that conjecture.
Meanwhile, their liability insurance is totally unrelated to their bet on Linux copyright unencumbrance. The liability insurance is merely betting that less than 3% of the insured value of the software they cover is malware. Charging 3% of that insured value, and paying less than 3% in claims, is the aggregate arbitrage of which all insurance is made. But nowhere in that calculus does any Linux copyright liability appear. There's a missing monkey in here somewhere.
--
make install -not war
And we all know that press releases are unassailable sources of information and legal advice.
I would very much like to know what methods they used to review the code. Interpreting the results of any comparison to remove false positives is a very subjective process. Do they have a method that doesn't generate false positives? If so, did their method find the code that SGI admitted to contributing by mistake?
To be honest, anyone claiming there is absoloutely no questionable code sounds as suspect as SCO claiming it's all questionable code. Reality is never black and white like that.
Of course, at this point it's obvious that any SCO code in Linux is trivial and unintentional. If there were millions of lines of SCO code in Linux it would be impossible to overlook. It remains to be seen how much GPL code has made its way into SCO's UNIX offerings.
What about the fact that the coverage they are offering is already available from most of the largest E&O providers in the market (AIG, ACE, Hiscox, Chubb, Zurich, CNA, etc.) 1. cheaper 2. with higher limits 3. with more experienced claims handling staff 4. not tied to specific best practices and techniques (without which coverage does not attach) and 5. as part of a larger E&O program that will provide more coverage for the more likely problems - bugs.
Seriously, this is really just a lot of fluff at this point. $100k in defense costs and $1m in limits is nothing for large companies that buy $50m - $100m liability towers, and a small company looking for coverage can buy $1m in limits (including software copyright) for a lot less than $30k.
And for the record, Bruce, reinsurance is not a great answer. Just look at the problems the London markets are having getting Swiss Re to pay their claims. For a small, poorly capitalized company like OSRM, more than 3 or 4 losses (which their adverse selection will guarantee) will leave them cash flow negative, unable to continue functioning while they wait for the reinsurers to cut a check.
Hey Perens -- according to groklaw comments, you aren't even legally licenced to sell insurance!
Hopefully you bought some "legal insurance" yourself, because you might need it.
I can offer insurance that gravity will work consistently on the surface of the earth. Just send me $100 for every million dollars of insurance and I will personally guarantee you that unpowered objects won't fly away from the earth's surface. Act now, and I'll throw in insurance that pi is an irrational number at only one cent per digit!
Uhh, "northern European reinsurance" companies like Swiss Re and Munich Re pretty much wrote the book on property insurance.
I think you've got it backwards - they arrange their reinsurance programs to mitigate the total exposure, freeing the primary insurer from having to get everything right. If the primary was so confident in their ability to manage the exposures, they wouldn't need as much reinsurance, would they?
> Because OSRM seem to be offering more than just insurance (such as access to their IP lawyers)?
Apparently the aren't really selling "insurance" at all, only the legal services.
We'll see if they even find a BigInsurCo.
So my interpretation of what you're willing to offer the community could be summed up by this statement, no?.
Well, in some cases (earthquake coverare, for instance) even getting it statistically completely right would make the system nonworkable. You may know exactly how likely that earthquake is and how much damage it can do, and yet you can't offer insurance since if it happens you'll be out of business, period.
It's not front- or backwards; it goes both ways. The primary insurer and the reinsurer has different reasons to participate. It really is just different viewpoints on the same thing.
Oh, and BTW, I was not implying that those insurance companies does not know about property insurance, but only that they would not find it worthwhile to accumulate deep, local expertise for the sake of just a few customers.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
i hear, but GenRe still seems to have figured out how to make it work...
I am pretty sure that statistically, we're all gonna die someday.
I don't think they're insuring against SCO winning., the code review means they're pretty confident SCO has no case.
They're insuring against individual nusance lawsuits from SCO, and similar bottom-feeders that may start up this path in the future.
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
-
Their stock is in a screaming dive. Closed at $7.77 today, down from $22 at peak.
-
Their VCs want their money back.
-
Before they can sue Linux users over copyright violations, they have to beat IBM and Novell and Red Hat and Damlier-Chrysler or AutoZone.
-
They're losing against IBM, and the other suits aren't going anywhere yet.
-
IBM's law firm is Cravath, the big hammer of corporate litigation. Cravath puts huge teams of lawyers on the job and has an organized process for not missing anything and not making mistakes.
Nobody wins a weak suit against Cravath.
-
SCO has never sued a Linux user that didn't have a previous contract with SCO. If they try, any such suit can be stalled until the big lawsuits are settled, for the same reason the Red Hat lawsuit is on hold.
-
Because SCO has been sueing their own customers, it's dangerous to become an SCO customer. SCO sales have thus tanked.
So there.I'm ashamed.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
This sounds like title insurance for the "intellectual property" (excuse the tired phrase) that is Linux. OSRM did the equivalent of a title search (I'd like to know more about how this was done) and are now offering (for a fee) to back anyone's entitlement to license Linux. This is a good thing.
It's a bit suspicious that Linux users might need to buy insurance but the users of the dominant (can we say "convicted monopolist's"?) operating system don't. (Say, what about selling insurance policies against litigation by the BSA????)
I mean, we *all* need fire and auto insurance - not just some of us. But when it is only the *competitors* of a convicted bully who need the insurance... well, draw your own conclusion.
Maybe it should just be called the Microsoft Threat insurance policy. And that means that Microsoft has already won: they have successfully made Linux dearer to own and run.
A more appropriate action is to hunt down the money trail to Microsoft, then BREAK IT APART. A company that is bent on KILLING its opposition needs more than a rap on the knuckles. Everyone would be better off without the abusive monopoly - even its shareholders would probably benefit.
I am anarch of all I survey.
I've had a lawsuit threatened against me from some things I posted online - cost a company some major sales, and they came after me. It worked - I couldn't defend myself, my boss said the company couldn't defend me, so I caved in. Stopped posting on the offending sites, and haven't been there in years.
Let's say you wrote a program that could compete with ACID, Sound Forge or one of the other pro-level audio editing programs. One lawsuit about some obscure, obsolete codec could delay release in the United States for years - look at the 2600 case. During that time, they continue to make profits unchallenged, and they continue to use baroque legalisms to run up your lawyer's bill until you cry "uncle" and give up.
It really seems like this insurance is intended for software companies and in-house developement teams that have overly-cautious bosses. Cool idea. Dunno if it'll survive a major assault, though.
excellent points.
speaking as an ex-BSD contributor, much unix code
is really work-for-hire flying under the radar.
certain open source code authors have "signed off"
(i.e. dedicated to public domain, signed the FSF
copyright forms, non-exclusively dual-licensed
stuff to all-comers, etc.), without caring a whit
about whether such artistic works are really
works-for-hire...
this is a natural consequence of being a creator
who writes open source code "on the side",
perhaps unrelated to the business of an employer.
yet, when push comes to shove, employers
with $$ can interpret the labor codes more favorably
than the poor sap who works on some peripheral R&D.
the phraseology "own time, own equipment"
just doesn't fly if the nexus of work & play
is computer software.
to want linux for anything but the quality of linux. The quality is consistently going up... so it's only a matter of time.
Because BigInsurCo knows how to evaluate risk, but doesn't know anything about Linux?
How is that insightful? Either BigCo is going to insure LittleCo or not. If they insure LittleCo, based solely on LittleCo's "expert" judgement, they still bear all the risk. Now that LittleCo has publicly stated that Linux is free of copyright violation, what useful function do they still serve?
-a
The best thing is that they have killed any chances of anyone buying SCO products again.
Sadly not true, I'm working for a company that is in the process of setting up a new SCO installation on behalf of a customer.
Sure SCO Unixware isn't cutting edge, or something that I think is very popular, but we use it and it's the platform a few products run on.
Course in my server room it our SCO boxes sit next to our Debian boxes .. but that's another story.
Right now there's been little inside talk of the SCO case, but I'm guessing a migration to Linux might not be out of the question..
OK, OK, I know that some of the board members of this company are people we most of us respect. And judging by what Bruce Perens, at least, has contributed to this discussion it seems they really believe in the idea.
But it smells of snake oil.
One cannot, in general, prove a negative. I've no doubt this company has diligently gone through every line of the kernel and reviewed it. But they have not, because they cannot have, diligently gone through every line of pre-existing proprietary computer code on the planet. The majority of computer programs are never released in source form, and it is not normally possible to reconstruct the original source by reverse engineering a stripped binary. So for the vast majority of legally copyright software out there, they did not have the source and could not compare Linux against it.
But that, actually, is beside the point.
By reading diligently through the code the company may potentially put something back into Linux; they may notice and report back to the relevent authors blunders, inelegancies and bugs.
They may.
But apart from that, they make no contribution back to the community. They are, in effect, another bunch of freeloading parasites on the community - the moral equivalent of head lice. They cannot have done what they say they've done, because it is a logical and practical impossibility. But they will profit - probably substantially - on the fears of ill-informed or risk averse corporate managements, and that profit is at least to some extent at the community's expense, because it siphons off money that those corporations were at least in principle prepared to spend on Linux.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
... somebody with your reading comprehension capabilities most likely is not writing any software for which anybody else will make a lot of fuss.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I think a ruling stating that there is no difinitive evidence that there is offending code in linux and that all the code in Linux belongs in the public domain would not be unreasonable.
Except for one small, leetle teensie problem. Linux isn't in the public domain now. Never was.
Hopefully, it never will be.
See, there's this thing, called the GPL. It's a license. A license is a legal mechanism (usually based on contract or some other terms and conditions) that allows you to do something that's otherwise not permitted or is illegal.
For example, there's a driver's license. It's generally illegal to drive - unless you have a license.
Similarly, it's a violation of various statutes to use software developed by somebody else without their permission.
Software in the "public domain" is owned by everybody (and nobody) and you can do whatever you like with "public domain" software.
However, Linux is NOT in the public domain. Linux is a hopelessly tangled mess of software ownership that would be a train wreck if it weren't for the fact that it's licensed (there's that word again!) under the GPL.
Let's hope that Linux stays semi-free - as the real "free" is what killed Unix!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
In case you are a poor developer that contributes to Linux and a company with relatively big pockets plays an SCO on you.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
What's your contingency plan for supporting that customer if (when) SCO bite the dust ?
Assuming you've got one, what stops you using it straight away ?
That would be a management plan that I'm currently unaware of.
I would imagine a swiftish migration either to a supported Linux distribution, or possibly Solaris.
Implementing it now? The biggest challenge would be going round all our customers removing the currently working SCO installations and installing a new OS + reinstalling our apps.
In short it would be a nightmare to manage when the systems are in use 24x7.
If you had actually bothered to read anything off the Debian site you would realise that though the stable version of their software may claim old version numbers, it is actually bang smack up to date with security patches. Most users will want the testing version, or maybe unstable {which is made by grabbing the newest version of almost everything as it comes out}.
You only have to edit a file, for crying out loud. If you can't deal with that then you are not a hacker -- but it's easier to be a whining little baby, isn't it? Go back to your pirate copies of Windows and Office XP and delude yourself you're sticking it to the man by copying software illegally, when in reality you're just sucking his cock and loving it.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Didn't SGI admit to a blunder where they introduced tainted code?
That would indicate that at least some versions of 2.4 didn't pass the sniff test, and therefore "2.4 free of copyright violations" already needs some clarification.
These are good people, finding an interesting way to make a buck, but it's impossible - flat out im-poss-i-ble that in 6 months, they conclusively guaranteed that every line is original thought with a clean pedigree.
If they had come back with a list of 300 questionable sections, and a version of linux that has those questionable sections removed (and worked with a limited number of features) I would be far more prone to believe.
This announcement sounds like hopeful zealotry, pure marketing, or worse for us all, incompetence.
I share your supsicions BUT...
Although I'm not privy to the facts, I'm not sure why it *couldn't* be "black and white", consider that the following has to be true for the code to be infringing on copyrights.
If X's code *is* in the kernel AND X actually owns the copyright(!) AND If that code is not legally GPL'd/BSD'd AND the code passes $patent_tests*.
X's *claims* to own copyrights may be blatantly false,e.g. certain claims of SCO's have been vehemently debunked by Linus himself, because he wrote it.
If a company "accidentally" releases code under the GPL then, as far as I understand it, they have to STFU, accept their losses, go home and listen to Morissey.
If an employee of company X GPL'd code illegally, then that's another matter.
But doesn't some element of Good Faith(tm) enter into it? Perhaps some resident IAAL/IANALBIPOOTV could ellucidate.
*If the code is trivial or obvious, two developers may well come up with the same solution independently. They may eben^H^H^Hven use the same variable names if it's trivial and obvious, or, they are complying with some standard etc..
If they now have pedigree on every line of linux ... Will they please publish it? Every single line, with an attribution credit next to it.
They would have had to build one of these in order to declare it free of violations, right? Please, publish this on a website, and give the community the tools required to defend itself.
The file drivers/usb/emi26_fw.h carry the license below:
* This firmware is for the Emagic EMI 2|6 Audio Interface
*
* The firmware contained herein is Copyright (c) 1999-2002 Emagic
* as an unpublished work. This notice does not imply unrestricted
* or public access to this firmware which is a trade secret of Emagic,
* and which may not be reproduced, used, sold or transferred to
* any third party without Emagic's written consent. All Rights Reserved.
*
* This firmware may not be modified and may only be used with the
* Emagic EMI 2|6 Audio Interface. Distribution and/or Modification of
* any driver which includes this firmware, in whole or in part,
* requires the inclusion of this statement.
*/
AFAIK there is no written statement from Emagic that it allows such code to be included in GPL kernel.
See for details bug 242895 at
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi
Off the bat, let me say..the closest I've got to insurance is buying it and a quotes system we wrote for a uni project.
If I *know* someone isn't going to crash their car, then I can offer them a premium as low as you like, if it covers my costs and perhaps a little profit. And I'll be undercutting the people who aren't sure whether that person will crash their car.
This should be the position OSRM are in surely?
Likewise, I only offer to insure their car up to it's agreed value, if another insurer doesn't know the value of their car, then they might insure it for more than it's worth, further raising the premium they charge.
This should be the position OSRM are in surely?
If this expert knowledge doesn't give them enough edge to offer a lower price, then I share your concerns for the viability of their endeavour.
My understanding of insurance is offering to bear a risk for monetary compensation. If there is no risk, why should anyone want to pay someone to take 0 risk off their hands?
Well, of course BigInsureCo can reinsure LittleCo.
...shudder... no, forget that. Say they have to pay out to some other small company who took out insurance with them, well they're fine, cos they got free money for insuring against SCO's crap, and lots of other ventures.
BigInsureCo spreads the risk by offering insurance to lots of small fry.
Say they have to pay out to SCO
The bigger an insurance company is, the more certain their profit becomes, as long as they can assess risks fairly well. Bigger sample, smaller variance. The only thing that has brought insurance companies down in recent years is insuring satellites that crashed.
#define struct union
David Boies/David Bowie confusion! ROFL
the guys is a fucking nazi!
ask anyone in sweden, they will tell you
Did you really just mixed musician David Bowie and SCO's lawyer Davie Boies?
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Bruce, I know this is slightly off-topic, but whatever happened to your Slashdot interview? I thought that you must just be way too busy to answer the questions, but here you are posting on Slashdot. At the time at least, some of the questions were good ones, and I had one that I'd still like to hear your opinions on. The interview questions were posted on July 28 of 2003. What happened?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I am not a Linux guru, however ...
Firmware is something that lives in some kind of rom. It is usually part of a device. I can't imagine how firmware would be included IN the kernel.
What is at issue here is the kernel only. Everything else (which is most of any distro) is another issue.
Basically, the developer policy won't see you thru the first 4 weeks of discovery.
This policy is next to worthless.
I see aircraft renters "insurance" that covers $50,000 per passenger. When was the last time a tort lawyer settled for $50,000? Basically worthless, as is this "developer's insurance".
This just scares the poor college student who would think about contributing to FOSS right out of town. What we need is legal change to protect the developers, not an insurance policy that is virtually worthless.
Think about how few people would actually contribute to FOSS if they actually have to PAY for the right.
The Red Hat/OSDN approach is the ONLY correct way to solve the developers liability problem absent legislation.
-mike
Given the two-tier rate structure, slashdotters ought to chill. This obviously isn't targeted at the random Linux hacker, but toward the corporate users of linux who aren't necessarily open source savy. I'm thinking banks, life insurance companies, financial institutions, and conglomerates. Companies with lots of money, who traditionally run large iron from the Big Name Computer companies and are the type to pay a software vendor for open source products they could otherwise download for free (as in beer), simply because they need to have the comfort level of a (supposed) VAR in the middle.
It's not a bad move, as far as business strategies go. It's practically free money, as these sorts of companies go for this sort of "low cost, high risk protection" all the time. Plus the chances of SCO (or anyone else) successfully taking on any of these corporations is fairly small, making the risk-reward ratio incredibly favorable.
That's what OSRM is doing, and they hired her to do some research for them. Big difference.
After 30 year study, Castro announces communism OK.
because they're offering product liability insurance to both developers and users."
Now this is a weird situation.
And before anything else let me say that I am a strong advocate for free software and think Pamela Jones and groklaw have done a wonderful service to the community by applying intense legal play-by-play to the SCO case.
But.
If they're in the business of selling insurance against copyright attacks on Linux, does that not represent a conflict of interest?
If they were after the money, I would have expected their assessments to have at least a small note of ominious nature so that potential clients would be inclined to buy that insurance.
In an era when every other day you hear about yet another lapse in corporate ethics, with the problems that Arthur Anderson got into by offering consulting services to the same clients to whom they offered auditing services, people have to be a lot more careful.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
IBM's legal team will prevail and destroy SCO in the process. There won't be anything left for Red Hat, AutoZone, or Daimler-Chrysler. There is no chance at all that anyone farther down the chain will ever face SCO in court. SCO insurance is a sucker bet.
The business world is finally learning what /. readers have known all along. SCO is a scam. SCOX stock has generally trended downward, with a few surprising upward blips based on the FUD of the day. But SCO is now in its death spiral. The stock is tumbling, and this time it isn't coming back. Time for this company to take a little dirt nap.
It's also time for Microsoft to launch the next assault against Linux. I say, "Bring it, bitch."
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
Just because they didn't find evidence in 6 months of looking doesn't mean there's no evidence somewhere. If "knowingly" is the standard, then everyone is in the clear - but I'm not sure that's the case here. Citation? If that's the model, then 6 months *is* enough to find that kernel.org and the distro makers have a clean paper trail. Infringement upstream would remain liability only upstream. In any case, all those SCO infringement suits on endusers would be frivolous. They sure look that way to me, but not necessarily on this "knowingly" principle. And since a judge would need only a single hearing to learn so themself, I'd expect those suits would be discarded by now.
--
make install -not war
Who the hell is this lady, where the hell did she come from, and will she marry me?
Obviously there is a certain amount of common sense (i.e.: you would expect it to be released by a senior employee to believe a contract/license)--if someone on the shop floor in Mc. Donalds tries to sell McDonalds to you, it would be argued that you should not believe them.
IANAL &c.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Just an FYI:
I called my insurance agent and 1 million dollars of coverage for a software company runs $225.00/year. I cannot remember what I pay for my insurance since the bill isn't in front of me!
So you can pay $250 for $25,000 in coverage. Which if anyone needs it the company will dry up. Or you can go to (yes they are evil) St.Farm and get $1,000,000 for $25 less. Which is the better option?
Some times I think everyone should be required to get a degree in Finance or at least be able to pass the CFP (Certified Financial Planner) exam before making decisions in their financial lives. CFP is the easy exam, CFA (Chartered Financial Analyst) is the insanely difficult one to get (harder than the CPA and Bar from what I've heard, but the guy that told me had a CPA, CFA and JD (Law) so I trust his opinion).
Hooray! OSRM declares Linux free of copyright violations! Meanwhile, you can't even get a Soundblaster-compatible card working that Windows 95 from 10 years ago runs out of the box.
Watching Linux zealots justify it and dance around the issue is one of the most hilarious things I've read at Slashdot. Keep it up!
Funny you mention repeating, since it's a "six-month old repost" according to the front page of Anti-slash.org.