Slashdot Mirror
Perens Talks About Open Source Risk Management
Big Sav writes "Here is a quick but good interview with Bruce Perens. It also raises the topic of indemnification vis a vis the SCO court case
" Interesting interview - talks about Peren's new Open Source Risk Management company.
I am surprised that he didn't discuss the work of Jonathan Smith at U of Penn.
Not that I can really blame him, but this interview is simply a promotion of his new OSRM company. Like posting an interview with your favorite movie star (who spend the entire time plugging his or her new film). It just doesn't seem like "news" as much as it is a commercial.
What if SCO choose to attack them like the ??AA went to war against p2p users ?
Small users cannot afford lawyers, after all...
Trolling using another account since 2005.
To me it sounds as if the group Bruce is on the board of is trying to exploit or otherwise captalize on the FUD of SCO actually winning a lawsuit. Which probably won't happen. Kind of reminds me of start-up companies which were around for all of the Y2K madness back in 1999. The FUD helped fuel interest, which really exaggerated the real deal.
Maybe Bruce should start selling underwear to Iraqi prisoners...
For our less read posters http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=indemnifi cation
In a perfect world, this service wouldn't be necessary. But, you really can't expect companies to take even imagined risks. If this helps people get involved in OSS despite all the SCO FUD, then job well done.
...the claimed TCO of Linux has just gone up by however much Getting Sued Over Linux insurance you decide you need. Perens claims he isn't taking advantage of FUD, and he may well not be -- but at least acknowledge that this represents a 180 degree change from "No one could possibly believe there's any legal risk associated with Linux use and anyone who says otherwise is a Microsoft spy!"
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
bruce posts here on /. often enough, why not just talk to him directly.
There is more about Open Source Risk Management on the wikipedia!
Reading about his "company" struck me as being extortionist. To me (a business owner), it sounds like "There are many problems with Open Source Software. Pay us, and we'll protect you from all of them. If you don't, well, you're fucked."
Gee, whiz. I want nothing more than to start using wonderful OSS, now!!
Either I need indemnification, or I don't. Which is it? If there's any question whatsoever, I'm gonna err on the side of caution and stick with proprietary code.
For a blow-hard, do-nothing media whore, Perens sure can fuck things up.
Risk is properly measured by the variance in possible outcomes, the amount of "spread" around the expected value, and probability does not enter into that.
Risk has a value because every extra dollar you add to your wealth is worth less to you than the one that came before. So, upward "wins" in the variance are worth less than downward "losses", i.e. you should be willing to pay to eliminate risk, to shrink your variance.
So, the economic "risk" of the SCO lawsuit exists with regard to the spread in possible outcomes, and has nothing to do with their probabilities. The value of insurance to you is based on your economic activity and your risk aversion.
Insurance will increase the spread of Linux, not decrease it.
Perens is capitalizing on his name, not on the FUD, since the article doesn't reflect that he understands risk in detail.
It is actually pretty ridiculous of SCO to even have this court case. As an example, I cite my dad's run-in with the US-PTO upon trying to patent a piece of software many years ago: they rejected his claim, stating that "there will NEVER be patents on computer software." Maybe they meant there SHOULD never be patents on computer software... who knows. Once again, it would be nice to see what SCO actually claims they "own", and how they can prove that "fact".
stuff |
That's a PR line. Lawspeak. It indeed is capitalizing on the FUD since any educated person in the technology industry knows that the SCO case doesn't have a leg to stand on. The only potential clients I can see are those who blindly fall for the FUD that SCO has perpetuated.
Just like those consulting companies that were around in 1999 to ensure that no Y2K disaster was going to hit clients. I know some companies would go into people's homes and ensure they were Y2K-compliant. What a freakin' joke! Remember folks stockpiling food and readying themselves for living in bomb shelters? Of course it's an extreme comparison, but the basis is the same. Capitalizing on more ignorant folks' fears.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
..as a community do to manage the risk of advocates becoming poster boys for financial services and legal companies who want to profit from our work?
Does he every do anything for the Linux community that doesn't directly make him money?
I am serious, and 2-3 year old SW doesn't count.
Their contracts look very much like insurance, as stated by many in their responses, however what I don't get is this: insurance companies can profit (and their customers benefit) whenever the probability of the negative events happening is not correlated across customers. I get injured, the insurance refunds me with the premia paid by all.
However, in the linux/sco case, if sco wins, ALL companies using linux will sooner or later have to pay. How can insurance work in this environment?
Having heard Bruce Peren's give a speech before and had a chance to hear some of his outlook on Linux and IP, he seems to have a fair handle on how it all works.
From the interview it seems that it's an effort to provide some indemnity while making people aware of the possible IP/Copyright issues inherent in coding software in the USA (and probably Europe soon). They're offering a service to assess risk of malicious lawsuits and possible IP violation. Doesn't sound like spreading Fear, Uncertainty, *or* Doubt to me.
You're reading Slashdot. Of course you like Linux and pc hardware
Since you wish to have internet based companies subsidize your business by forcing them to pay local and state sales taxes in areas where they are not based (therefor not using their local services) doesn't that make you an extortionist also?
Amusing. One correction, s/notebook.exe/notepad.exe/
Not because the case has or lacks merit, but because I run FreeBSD and they settled YEARS ago.
First, it seems to me that the Linux kernel developers should be getting this protection gratis from OSRM and the companies which are actually making a profit from the developer's efforts, and which would not exist except for the efforts of the developers. No, let's charge the kernel developers each $250 annually!!
Second, $25,000 isn't going to go very far if you get sued.
Third, the coverage cost seeems exorbidant. 1% per year for a risk that everyone has been saying all these months is non-existant! I have a $1 million liability umbrella which costs me not 1%, not 0.1%, but about 1/3 of 0.1%.
And if you're a company you pay only 3%! Then there's the Seminars, offered nationally, that you get to attend (at additional cost, no doubt). They don't say whether the coverage includes anything beyond the SCO issues.
Bruce and PJ have gone to the dark side.
This is right up there with the Linux Mark Institute, which is extracting a "low" $500 from everyone who wants to put out a distro which includes "Linux" in its name (even if free beer).
Ladies and gents, the good old days are gone.
Who are you, anyway? I probably didn't like you either.
Bruce Perens.
- IOW, a self-promoting idiot with an aimed interest at polluting the idea of free software...
This is not about SCO.
Just pretend that SCO doesn't exist, because there isn't a chance that they will prevail. Then consider what can happen with software patents.
Self-promotion? This interview was arranged by the company's PR firm, so sure. Macmillan calls me every week for something else, and this is the first time he's had a PR firm ask me to call him since publicity for my books at LinuxWorld NY. But I'd not get on the phone if I didn't think I had something interesting to say.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
..and because it's so easy to get yourself sued. It is SO easy to find yourself in court over something just totally lame, BUT, it will cost your beaucoup to deal with it, no matter what. And our legal system is EXPENSIVE to dork around in, expensive, overly complicated, nuts in other words.
Joe free software developer writes a prog, some companies use it. Then along comes someone with this vague patent they got back in 1986 and sues them all, running the odds that enough will cave that they will make money. Having indemnification helps mitigate risk, it's a simple concept that most business and industry runs under now, and it's not going away anytime soon, and eventually, there will be dozens of companies offering this sort of financial package. And the larger companies are grabbing patents on every two lines of code they can think of now, it's nuts, but until that is changed,until patenting "thoughts" is not allowed, eventually the legal system will bog down development. It already IS if you look around.
We COULD slow it down with a "loser pays" law system on civil infringements,that is automatic and not reqiring of a separate suit, and make it apply *equally* to the lawyers involved, as well as the principals. That would help slow down predatory lawyers, who really don't care what case they take,or what the merits are or are not, as long as they get paid.
I love it!!! makes me proud to be a Republican.
:)
please bring more of this great material to honor the greatest party every formed in the United States Of America. also..
fuck iraq
fuck afghanistan
fuck anyone who is not an American
Thanks
Windows users don't seem to need insurance - or, at least, no one seems to be selling insurance against BSA raids.
But Linux users (at least big corporations using Linux) DO need insurance against meritless lawsuits??? Meritless lawsuits supported by whom???
Hmmm. Sounds like protection money to me.
Microsoft wanted to make running Linux more expensive than it was, relative to Windows. By threatening Linux through their proxy, SCO, they have succeeded in increasing the cost of Linux: Linux users need to take out insurance that Windows users don't need to buy.
This SHOULD be considered a criminal act - a form of racketeering. Where is the Anti-Trust Act when it is really needed? Why charge someone with a criminal act for stealing some minor item worth one or two dollars out of a shop, and then let a billionaire attempt to steal an entire market - with all the billions of dollars of consumer money and industry inefficiency it costs?
Hello, planet earth???
I am anarch of all I survey.