Slashdot Mirror
Indemnification Roundup
Skapare writes "O'Reilly Network's LinuxDevCenter has a great article summarizing the indemnification possibilities for businesses considering switching to (or staying with) Linux. Author Tom Adelstein covers the business risk mitigation aspects of using Linux today, and details available indemnification offerings from Novell, HP, Red Hat, and OSRM. So why not print a copy and send it to your company CEO."
For something that has yet to be proven, and all signs point to the SCO case as being a farse.
These companies backing their products with legal aid are simply doing it as a marketing ploy. RedHat, HP, Novell.. they know there's nothing to worry about, that's why they've all been so eager to extend these "services."
I can't wait until the whole SCO case is just over. We all here know that SCO will lose.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
It's just human nature, everyone wants to make money out of something.
In the case of FOSS, it's usually support, and if it's not support, it'll be insurance. And if it's not insurance, it'll be protection money.
Why is it even necessary to get this kind of insurance, it would be the company selling the software to me that is liable, not myself unless I decide to redistribute it, and even then...
Join moola.com, play games to earn money.
Does Microsoft not hire programmers that used to work at other firms, for example? Couldn't they "accidently" contribute code from a former employer's products? Are you willing to indemnify all users of Microsoft that they are not under any legal risk for using Microsoft software if you are so sure?
So if the next SCO comes out screaming that windows has their stolen code and they want to alsu try and extort... oh wait fine all users $500.00 per CPU then everything is fine because it's microsoft and they will be a nice benelovent company and protect us?
Waht exactly are you smoking this morning? as not even crack can make a person that wacked out.
it applies to microsoft and ALL microsoft products exactly the same UNTIL microsoft comes out and says, "we will take the fall for YOU no matter what."... and we know that wont. Steve Ballmer is not that smart or strong of a company leader to do that.
It comes back to accountability, which is a problem in the world of OSS. If there is tainted code in the Windows source that spurs a lawsuit, you can bet that this lawsuit will be on Microsoft's hands, not on users of its software.
In some sense, it's similar to the Napster (the Napster of yesteryear, not the name-whoring music store) vs. Kazaa from the RIAA's perspective. Microsoft is like Napster in that there is a central place of accountability, so the RIAA can just go there (in this case, Napster's servers) to settle their beef. Kazaa however (or bittorrent/whatever), is like the opensource world. There is no single place of accountability and therefore the problem has to be solved at the users end. I'm not saying that the kernel does have SCO's code, but if it did, wouldn't you like to know who's accountable.
With the Open Source community, this problem is a dangerous one. Since every user has access to the source code, and every user is potentially a kernel hacker, does this not make every user somewhat accountable? (yes, this argument is stretched a little thin, but its food for thought).
I wouldn't be so quick to indemnify myself; this just 'shows' SCO and their paid shills that they're right. ... they obviously know they've stolen our code for communist activities!"
"Look, these Linux users are getting indemnification
I know, I know. It's awfully hard to prove them wrong when they won't say exactly what they claim. So sue me. err, no... Sue them! That's what IBM, RedHat, and a few others are doing right now.
The Cheese Stands Alone.
In legal terms, never assume a company will come to bat for you, or that an entity suing will pick Microsoft and not you -- especially if you look like an easier target for a win that will set some precedence for them.
Once a business demonstrates sufficient long-term viability, there is inevitable pressure to consolidate and "standardize" the market by the removal of small competitors.
The most politically attractive tool for removing small vendors from a market is overwhelming economic force (free as in beer). Current case in point, Gmail will destroy small ISPs by teaching users to demand hundreds of megabytes of email storage. Yahoo & Hotmail have already responded.
Indemnification will do the same for Linux distributions. You may be able to roll your own distro, but it will be increasingly difficult to distribute it without legal exposure (not only to the publisher, but the distribution channel, e.g. SourceForge/OSDN).
After economic consolidation comes political consolidation (regulation). Sender-pays email, state-issued ID for publication, bank-issued ID for consumption, firewall liability insurance in exchange for permission to face the public network, VOIP-driven consolidate of "offline" and "online" IDs -- and just when you're about to go insane with boundary barriers: premium green-light services that guarantee swift passage to those who can afford it.
Creative anarchy will remain possible within organized economic pools that can negotiate regulatory barriers to entry and evolution.
With all the costs of linux (accountability, support services, re-writing inhouse software, re-training IT), I think that most businesses will stick with MS and license their software. This recurring cost may be more than Linux's recurring cost, but the barrier for exit from MS's world is high. However, I do think that once MS releases a new OS and eventually businesses feel pressure to switch to it, many will instead switch to Linux. The cost of switching to Linux, while higher than the cost of supporting Windows, will be lower than the cost of switching to a new Windows OS, and will present a lower forward cost. Never underestimate greed as a tool to switch people to OSS.
I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
... in any of the Microsoft anti trust cases? I really don't know, but it sure would be interesting if there was any way to force an audit of their code looking for "stolen" code. Someone who has looked at it under an NDA might have noticed it, but be reluctant to whistleblow on the subject being afraid of getting sued from microsoft for violating the NDA, and having no one to step in and help them with the legal fees. Just a maybe there because I don't know, but I am suspicious of them and their relationship with SCO at this time. It might be one of the reasons behind the SCO suit, perhaps "protect" some code that they are using now. If there was ANY bonafide evidence of code theft at their shop, it might be enough to get a new investigation going.
What say ye, ACs who have seen the code, any wisps of smoke there?
Novell offers legal protection, but Red Hat is basically offering the ability to carry on operations without worrying about the lawsuit. I understand that legal liability is important, but the real threat is not having a solution that you are legally able to use. To me, this reduces the real uncertainty in the situation. Novell's users might not have to worry about the legal fees, but what do they do with their business until they find a new OS solution?