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."

Comments

Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff?

[weave]

Indemnification is just a rouse to rise the total cost of ownership of Linux. Do I need to buy or worry about this kind of stuff when I buy Microsoft software? If not, why not? Is Microsoft not capable of accidently stealing someone else's work?

Here we have an allegedly pro-Linux site promoting the same false statement. That if you run Linux, you have an increased legal risk and hence should shop around for a vendor that indemnifies its users or buy insurance to do so.

If you're going to do an article like this, at least remove the distinction between FOSS (free and open source software) and proprietary software. For example, have a section that lists Microsoft, and then has a statement that says Microsoft does not indemnify their customers.

All these risks people are throwing out about FOSS play right into the hands of proprietary software vendors trying to figure out ways to up the TCO of Linux. Shame on LinuxDevCenter for playing along.

Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff?

[clymere]

The difference is that Microsoft is one of the largest corporations in the world. They do in fact use other people's code on a regular basis...they outright steal things, knowingly.

The difference here is that Microsoft has the legal muscle to get virtually anyone to back down from them...even if MS was actually in the wrong.

You can't afford to hire MS's lawyers if SCO decides to sue you next...thats what you would want indemnification for.

Frankly, I am surprised that anyone is still discussing this as if its really a viable option anyways. SCO's suits are all but over, paying indemnication fees to anyone at this point is a waste of money, no matter who you are.

Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff?

[aixou]

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.

And what type of precedent do you think that would set? One that discourages using Microsoft products? Microsoft is in the business of making money. If Microsoft's customers were being sued left and right you can sure as hell bet that they wouldn't just sit there with their thumbs in their butts, especially with the free competition breathing down their neck.

stuff for fools to buy.

[Lumpy]

anyone that buy's into this is a complete fool. there is NO guarentee that you are protected in any way. I dont care what any of these companies say, they will not pay all your legal fees to protect yourself in court if another asswad company or person comes out of the woodwork and tries to claim that anyone using XYZ owes them $$$.

it's a bunch of empty and useless words that the companies are throwing out there. if you read it very closely I am betting that there are clauses and loopholes that relieve them of their "protection" in many ways.

if it makes a PHB heppy and shut's him up, then it may have value in that way. but it has ZERO value in any courtroom or for any protection for a company.

anyone with even a slight legal background can see this.

Why worry?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why worry about SCO's lawuit of GNU/LINUX?

If I want to use an Open Source OS that had settled the UNIX IP matter long ago, I pick FreeBSD.

If for some reason I want the GNU tollset I could pick GNU/FreeBSD.

Too bad Tom Adelstein couldn't be bothered to point out how the SCO claims of UNIX IP vs Open Source OS was solved years ago by the BSDi crew.

Huge Stuff for the Gunshy

[tarsi210]

This is huge in my business where the CEO is gunshy from a lawsuit 7 years ago. (yeah, I know...therapy) We recently turned down a completely free, open-source component for a relatively expensive one that did less for what? Indemnification. Our legal aid couldn't guarantee us that we wouldn't get sued.

It's a problem. Businesses that use 3rd party products need those products to perform WITHOUT giving them the added legal expense. I think your ROI really drops when it includes a few suits. Small businesses, in specific, aren't about to take that chance. That being said, they're less likely to be targeted, but often the chance isn't worth it.

They want someone to point a finger at if something goes wrong...the software breaks, it destroys data, or they get sued for infringement in order to recoup lost money. With open-source, you have no one to point at. (usually)