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?

[aixou]

I suppose it's somewhat analagous to volcano insurance. Everything's cool until your house is covered in soot.

Do I need to buy or worry about this kind of stuff when I buy Microsoft software?

No, but then Microsoft software is all done in house. 95% (give or take) of software included in a Red Hat distribution was not created by Red Hat, so they don't have the same level of accountability as Microsoft. With an indemnification plan, they are taking on the accountability of the linux kernel writers, which might give a justified peace of mind to any potential customer.

Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff?

[weave]

No?

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?

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.

All of this concern..

[cbreaker]

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.

Bad opening statement...

[Beolach]

I don't like how the article starts.

Little doubt exists; a legal cloud hangs over Linux from infringement claims of the SCO Group, Inc. In spite of that cloud, Linux server sales grew 56.9 percent in the first quarter of the year. Linux sales in 2004 follows six consecutive quarters of double-digit growth for the free operating system during unprecedented legal attacks from SCO over the same period.

Just that first statement, "Little doubt exists; a legal cloud hangs over Linux" annoys me. I can't really argue against it (yes, SCO did start a big stink), but I for one don't think of it as much of a 'cloud over Linux'. It really doesn't take much research to see that SCO's claim's are unlikely to hold up in court. And I think sales growth indicates I'm not alone in not being afraid of SCO's litigation, so where's the cloud? This almost seems like a scare tactic, not to make you stay away from Linux, but to buy a indemnification package to protect yourself. I don't buy it.

Re:I agree.

[weave]

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...

Well, anyone can sue anyone for any reason, so there are risks for just existing. Any larger company has a legal department and a legal budget as it is.

My point is, there's nothing to stop some small software maker in Australia from claiming that a technology inside Microsoft SQL server violates their patent or copyright and threaten to sue end users of SQL server (which I seem to recall actually did happen).

Risks are everywhere. Please stop supporting the myth that using Linux is extra risky.

Just proving them right

[Rat Tank]

I wouldn't be so quick to indemnify myself; this just 'shows' SCO and their paid shills that they're right.
"Look, these Linux users are getting indemnification ... they obviously know they've stolen our code for communist activities!"

Microsoft end users have been sued

[walterbyrd]

Nobody has ever been sued for just using Linux. However, end-users of a msft product (SQL server) have been sued over a patent violation.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/20/sql_serv er _developers_face_huge/

From the evidence that exists so far, it is clear that msft end-users are the ones more likely to be sued.

Of course the most likely to be sued of all, are end-users of scox proprietary products. For the simple reason that scox has made it a normal business practice to sue anybody who has any sort of contract with scox. So far that includes: ibm, chrysler, autozone, and novell.

What was it scox spokesman blake stowell said? "Lawsuits are what you use against people you have a contract with."

Barriers To Entry

[persaud]

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.

CEO

[Mr_Silver]

So why not print a copy and send it to your company CEO

Unless you're in a very small company, the CTO would be a better bet.

If you're in a really big company, then the chances are it should be going to the Director of IT.

Don't immediately shoot yourself in the foot by annoying people whose job is not to consider/deal with these issues.

Definitely Not.

[gillbates]

For your consideration:

• Microsoft's customers were sued by Timeline when Microsoft distributed code with SQL server that Timeline had only license to Microsoft for internal use.
• I have never heard of a Linux vendor suing their customers. Yet fairly recently, Microsoft sued the LA school district for about $400,000. They sued a school .... Think about that one for a while.
• Microsoft was convicted of abusing their monopoly position to hurt competitors. Misgivings about code written by volunteers are understandable, but it would be downright foolish to eschew code written by someone with altruistic motives in favor of code written by a convicted felon.
• The idea that a convicted felon's code - code which is intentionally kept secret - is somehow less likely to infringe on IP rights is laughable, at best.
• Furthermore, the fact that the source is closed means a company cannot even begin to evaluate the risk of infringement. One simply cannot determine how much or from whom Microsoft has stolen code - or if they've stolen any at all.

One could make some very good objections to using Linux, but liability is not one of them. If anything, the fact that the source code is freely available means that absent frivolous plaintiffs (*cough* SCO *cough*) there is a very small risk of being sued. Unlike the proprietary, closed source model, cases of actual infringement can be mitigated by the end user. If I was sued for IP infringement and didn't have the source code, my only option (assuming that infringement really took place) is to pay royalties and licensing fees. But if I do have the source code, I can simply remove the infringing material, substantially reducing the damages that a plaintiff could collect.

And for all you Microsoft-vs-Linux trolls, save it. Microsoft and Linux are just good examples of the relative strengths and weaknesses of open versus closed source. The argument would apply equally well to Adobe Photoshop vs. Gimp or Oracle vs Postgresql, etc...

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)