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."
I'm assuming the liability insurance will cover more than SCO. With the enormous amount of code changing hands in the OSS community, it's not really a bad idea to have liability insurance.
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".
I would view it as paying to support these people who, presumably of their own volition, went through the whole damn kernel just to make sure that its free of unpleasant copyright problems. on the other hand, there are probably businesses that would like some sort of liability insurance for peace of mind, but would prefer to avoid SCO ating like a bully trying to steal their lunch money.
Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
A. PJ is a good person, who has done a lot of work in her spare time, for free, to benefit the community at large.
:)
B. Before SCO was SCO, AT&T was SCO - see the BSD debacle to know what I mean.
In effect, we know SCO is full shit - but what about future companies? What would you do, if right now, SCO marched up to your business and demanded 20k in license fees?
Most would cave in. This insurance will help you fight.
If this insurance becomes available to individuals, I will get it - just because I really like groklaw, and think PJ's a cool person. Okay, so the backing up against pointless lawsuits bit helps, but..
Your press release states that you "will charge $250 to individual Linux developers". So you admit that you are charging hundreds of dollars for something unnecessary? If I wanted to waste money, I could pay $699 to SCO instead.
Are you actually offering this insurance yet? It sounds like you have not even found a reinsurer after spending months trying. Even if I wanted this insurance, I would be a fool to pay premiums before you have any sort of financial backing.
I have great respect for Bruce and Pamela, but frankly this reeks of opportunism and greed. OSRM will only be able to sell this product by scaring companies into thinking it is necessary. How will that possibly help Open Source? The venture capitalist who started this organization (Daniel Egger) has already begin spreading FUD. Just a few days ago he completely mischaracterized the DaimlerChristler suit. The OSRM web site has been cleaned up after intense criticism, but still says things like "organizations gaging the risks of Open Source software face a vacuum of clear information." On the contrary, I know of hundreds of highly convincing paper from lawyers like Eben Moglen dismissing the SCO claims.
Because your business is to scare people into buying insurance, you neglect to mention the millions of dollars in defense money already available free from the OSDN. There is also the million dollar Redhat Open Source Now fund. And don't forget vendor indemnification freely available for customers of Redhat, HP, Novell, etc. You do mention vendor indemnification on the OSRM site, but only to attack it as inferior to your insurance.
The OSRM page states that "OSRM has generated the widespread support of Open Source leaders," but the only ones I have seen supporting it are on the OSRM payroll. Without the credibility of PJ and BP, this project would be universally ridiculed. Egger made a good decision in paying you off (I'm sorry that sounds harsh, but we all know he hired you two for your credibility in the open source world).
You are a smart guy and have studied this more than I have. So perhaps you can enlighten me as to why I should consider this a good thing. Or maybe you are just trying to cash out on the current Linux FUD. That isn't illegal, but please don't cast it as doing us a favor.
I know its not like slashdotters to follow a developing story by reading anything more than the usual snippets of any given article, but SCO has offered a shred of evidence. They've pointed at a few heavy server techniques that they just might have a point on. I have a feeling this case is going to help define for all software engineers just how much knowledge an employee can gain and apply elsewhere without violating copyright. How any company can go along and say "We looked at the source code and guarentee that all the software was owned by the submitter," given the implicit copyright on all code created.
For what its worth, Linux will go on, and I think SCO's tactics of suing users is in poor taste. The offending code, if any, can be removed or possibly changed and the majority of enterprise users will remain unaffected.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
This is what I worry about. Some turkey sues an Open Source developer with intent to restrain. Not to recover funds. Said developer says "Uh-oh, I don't have the funds to support a single day in court. I'd better sign my copyright over to that turkey, sign whatever documents he has saying that I will never, ever write Open Source again, and find some other way to entertain myself."
$25,000 is not necessarily enough to defend every case, but it's enough to tide you over until you can get a publicly-funded defense up and running.
Regarding OSDL (not OSDN!) I don't know if there will be anything left for you when they are done with Autozone and Damiler, etc. Same with the Red Hat funds. I hope there is and that they are available to you. And also, I am worried about what happens if one of OSDL's corporate members is the plaintiff in a patent case against Open Source software. So, having a party that is not tied to HP and IBM is probably a good thing. And having a party that concentrates the funds for defending Open Source software into an entity that can actually do something is a good thing, too.
I think the most important point for the individual Open Source developer is "if you don't think you need this - you probably don't". Those who do need it know who they are.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
And you won't. You won't find the reinsurance coverage for it and you're balance sheet can't support it.
You're insane. You can't make money in patent insurance. The defense costs are too high, and the losses to large if you lose. That's why no one writes it.
Swiss Re has been known to write the occasional policy. Of course, it's with a $5m retention and indemnity only, and you're generally paying about 40% rate on-line.
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