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.

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)