|
|
| HP Offers Indemnification If You Give up Freedom to Modify |
 |
|
Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 01:51 PM EDT
|
Hewlett Packard is announcing that they will provide indemnification for its customers against any SCO lawsuits: "We will provide full indemnity across the entire suite for any SCO-related action," said Martin Fink, HP's vice president of Linux. "If (customers) were to get sued by SCO, we would take over their defense and assume liability on their behalf." The indemnification program is limited to customers who receive a Linux distribution from HP, run it on HP hardware and have a support contract with HP. There's no additional charge for the protection. Fink said HP is not paying any Linux-related licensing fees to SCO. They indicate it was a toss-up between suing SCO or providing customer indemnification, and they chose the latter.
According to
this poston Yahoo! SCOX message board, the WSJ quotes McBride as saying: "It's laudable that HP is stepping up to protect its users, but this will put a huge burden on the company." HP isn't charging for this indemnification, actually, saying the company is "in a position to take that risk" of any legal bills. Fink says "HP will take over any litigation and defend against any claims on behalf of its clients. He added that this will apply to any customer that has acquired Linux on an HP server or workstation as of Oct. 1." SCO immediately put out a self-serving
press release saying that this proves HP thinks there are IP issues in Linux and that Linux is not free:
HP's Actions Support SCO's Position That Linux is not Free
LINDON, Utah, Sep 24, 2003
HP's actions this morning reaffirm the fact that enterprise end users running Linux are exposed to legal risks. Rather than deny the existence of substantial structural problems with Linux as many Open Source leaders have done, HP is acknowledging that issues exist and is attempting to be responsive to its customers' request for relief. HP's actions are driving the Linux industry towards a licensing program. In other words, Linux is not free.
We are gratified that, alone among the major Linux vendors, HP has taken a strong stand to protect their customers by indemnifying them against possible legal difficulties stemming from their use of Linux. We believe that this action signals that HP recognizes their Linux users could, in fact, face litigation because of copyright violations and intellectual property problems within Linux. As a company that strongly supports its customers, HP has done something about this.
Now that HP has stepped up for its customers, SCO once again encourages Red Hat, IBM and other major Linux vendors to do the same. We think their customers will demand it.
They should take a little more time on those press releases, methinks. As it happens, Fink's statement said exactly the opposite: "HP is not acknowledging anything related to SCO's actions," he said. "The validity of that is for the courts to decide." So now we know why SCO has been pushing IBM to indemnify its customers. They wanted to be able to say, as they did today, that offering indemnification is proof that there are IP issues in Linux, and that Linux isn't free. That's a really good reason not to offer it in the current climate.
Here'swhat one analyst said in reaction to SCO's press release: Dan Kusnetzky, an analyst at IDC in Framingham, Mass., said he expected one of the large IT vendors to indemnify its customers and protect its business interests. "Now that HP has done that, I suspect that IBM will make a similar move," he said.
Kusnetzky disagreed with SCO's analysis that the indemnification is proof of the alleged legal problems with Linux.
"I don't think HP is admitting that problems exist in Linux," he said. "It's admitting that the SCO Group might attack its customers and rather than lose a budding business ... they are taking steps to reassure customers that if The SCO Group does attack them, that they have a big friend, a big partner."
"It's kind of like HP stepping forward and saying, 'If SCO Group is attacking you, they're attacking us,'" Kusnetzky said. "I don't think that HP in any way, shape or form is agreeing to the original premise of The SCO Group's litigation that somehow their intellectual property ended up in Linux." Linus, Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond weighed in here. Linus said this: "As a 'we don't believe SCO has a case, and we're willing to put our money on it,' indemnification is wonderful. It might be a cynical marketing tactic, but if people are asking for it, why not?
"But I haven't got any inside scoop in what went on. I'd be disappointed in HP if they made some agreement with SCO. It's the old 'we don't negotiate with terrorists thing." If offering indemnification is proof of IP problems, I'd say Microsoft's recent announcement that they intend to offer expanded indemnification must mean the same thing. And what about SCO? Do they offer their customers indemnification? If so, is it proof they have problems with their software? And if they don't offer it, why should IBM? What kind of silliness is this? HP isn't offering indemnification against all IP problems. It offers protection against SCO and only SCO. Unfortunately, SCO has demonstrated a willingness to sue regardless of the merits of its position. So HP is saying it is going that extra step to protect its customers, none of whom asked for that indemnification, according to HP's teleconference call today. They acknowledge their customers aren't worrried about Linux, yet they decided to offer what their customers haven't asked for but SCO has? Here's Fink's statement today about customers not asking for indemnification: "We have not found customers are worried about long-term viability of Linux and the lawsuit, but we developed this [plan] to mitigate the risk of choosing Linux." Here's the worst part. You're only indemnified if you give up certain GPL freedoms, specifically the freedom to modify, according to this report on Newsforge: You aren't allowed to freely modify your source code and still be covered by HP's warm & fuzzy legal security blanket. Fink claims that "only one in 10,000" users ever modify source code, and that if you get your binaries -- for any distribution -- through HP and use it on HP hardware, you're covered. If you buy a new HP unit that comes with Linux and install that same version of Linux on that old HP laptop you have in the shed, you're still covered. (However, if you install it on your Toshiba laptop, you're not.) During a conference call at noon today, Fink said they'd check modifications "on a case-by-case basis." . . .A few moments later, respected tech journalist (and NewsForge contributing writer) Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols asked if security patches would void the indemnification. Fink said, "If you take them from an unknown third party" it's a case-by-case thing, but if you get your patches as binaries from a distribution publisher that works with HP, you're covered. Again with the binary-only baloney. What is with these people? Those of us who use GNU/Linux choose it because we can do whatever we want with it on our own computers. Try to get that through your heads. It's the freedom part that matters to GNU/Linux users. It's what we abandoned proprietary software to obtain. HP said they took this step to show their support for Linux. But what they do not understand is that the freedom to modify is a vital part of GNU/Linux. We aren't willing to give up any of the freedoms the GPL grants. Coming up with an indemnification plan that tells customers they can't modify source code tells us how much HP still doesn't get it. HP may imagine it is supporting Linux, and it may be sincere in wanting to, and that's putting the best interpretation on today's events, but it is actually in effect pressuring customers to abandon it. So, thanks but no thanks, HP. You need to go back to school and learn about the GPL, the freedoms it offers, and why it matters. Maybe you should consider hiring some staff members who understand all this, if you really want to support Linux. If you have such staff members currently, you should have listened to them warn you against making the mistake you made today, as I know they must have, if they are there. Here's my message to IBM and Red Hat on the subject of indemnification: Please don't offer indemnification across the board. If a corporate customer wants it and wishes to pay for it individually, go right ahead. But I don't want it. I don't need it. Openness is my indemnification anyway. I especially don't want you to offer it in the current circumstances. I've seen the indemnification corporations offer, and it offers next to nothing. You can see what I mean by reading what I wrote earlier on why I don't want indemnification here in an article entitled "An Answer to the Indemnification FUD," if you are interested. Bruce Perens got it right in his statement: Indemnification is really meaningless. All of the various parties offering it will only refund your purchase price for their software, not your real damages. So, you get nothing that you would not get just by downloading the software from one of the sites that distribute Open Source without charge. Then again, SCO's rantings are just as meaningless, and they have zero chance of prevailing in court, so indemnity is easy to offer. People who consider indemnity important need to look more deeply into it. By offering indemnification for free, HP has just publicly evaluated SCO's chances and rated them zero or at least inconsequential, despite SCO's desperate effort to spin it their way. That doesn't change the fact that what HP did today was join SCO in pressuring IBM into offering indemnification, and they should be ashamed of that. Here's Fink's statement: "Today's announcement is about accountability and protecting the customer, while the other vendors sit on their haunches," Fink said. "By doing this, HP is showing its leadership and demonstrating its true commitment to Linux." I beg to differ. By doing this, HP shows it isn't a true friend of the community, at least not yet. Even if it isn't a deliberate act of support for SCO, at a mimimum HP has demonstrated it doesn't even understand, let alone support, Linux. What I really wish is that businesses that don't grok what open source/free software is all about would stop offering it, go back to fighting among themselves over "IP" as if it were the Holy Grail, and leave us alone. Alternatively, hire people who do get it, and let them show you how to become a real contributing member of the open source/free software community. IBM made that effort, and that's why it has our support. We are happy to help you, if you are sincere about wanting to support Linux. A final word to the wise: get your own lawyer any time you enter the legal arena, if you can afford to. You always need someone who has your interests at heart exclusively. I'm not saying this is the case, but let's just imagine for a moment a worst-case scenario. Let's imagine that SCO and HP did do a deal. This is make-believe, remember, so we can imagine whatever we wish to make a point about needing your own lawyer. Let's say the deal was that SCO is painted into a corner. It has announced it will send out invoices, but then it figures out the GPL and various consumer protection laws stand in their way and they're afraid to go ahead. What to do? How about getting HP to say it will indemnify, then SCO can safely sue a customer of HP, who then steps in, doesn't countersue, and makes sure it loses on behalf of that poor customer who was naively relying on HP to defend Linux and the customer. I wish to stress I am not saying this is what is happening, because, like Linus, I have absolutely no inside information, but if something like that ever were to happen, you can surely see the wisdom of getting your own legal representation, someone you are sure is looking out for your interests and yours only. And even in the best-case scenario, judging from today's events, do you really trust HP to defend Linux on your behalf?
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Mark_Edwards on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 05:47 PM EDT |
TheStreet.com
"They [H-P] think they're not going to have
to spend a lot of money, if
any at all," C.E. Unterberg, Towbin analyst
Katherine Egbert concluded
about H-P's move to indemnify. "They aren't going
to put themselves
on the line for millions or billions of dollars."
and
"Jeff Neuburger, an intellectual property lawyer
at the New York firm
Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner, who has been
following the
SCO case, said H-P's actions may reveal more about the
company's
need to calm customers than its view of the case.
"I think it's more of a customer-relations initiative," Neuberger said. "I
don't think you can conclude that the lawsuit has no merit."
But, he added, "They probably wouldn't be this generous if they
thought the lawsuit had merit behind it.""
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rand on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 05:56 PM EDT |
There's been scuttle around that HP is busy gutting their newly-acquired
world-renound Compaq customer service organization. I can personally attest to
it, but I won't rave here, just mention that I've already bought the last
HP/Compaq my employer will ever own (as long as I get to to buy the toys).
It should be no surprise that HP is not listening to their customers, GNU/linux
customers in particular. I get the impression they put up with GNU/Linux
begrudgingly, like SCOG. Didn't they just start offering units with XP
preloaded that can't be dual-booted?
I suspect their understanding of GPL, while better than SCOG's, is still a bit
weak, somewhat like their understanding of Linux-savy consumers.
---
The Wright brothers were not the first to fly...they were the first to LAND.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 05:59 PM EDT |
I dont think that I need indemnification from HP but if someone
does then they can take that rout. From my point of view this HP is
acting like a security guard. They are telling people you can come into
our building and we will promiss to protect you or you can walk around
outside and your protection is your own buisness. That seems fair.
They are not saying that there customers can not change their source or
that they can not do whatever the GPL allows, they are only restricting
their extra protection to people who play by their rules.
If they did not some unscruplious person with access to the SCO source
could make a patch to their linux instlall from the source and then ask
HP to protect them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: skidrash on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 06:00 PM EDT |
This is actually quite good.
RH can use this as proof that SCO is threatening and that Linux related vendors
are seeing that threat.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: NSWarrior on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 06:00 PM EDT |
<i>Again with the binary-only baloney. What is with these people? Those of
us who use GNU/Linux choose it because we can do whatever we want with it on our
own computers. Try to get that through your heads. It's the freedom part that
matters to GNU/Linux users. It's what we abandoned proprietary software to
obtain.</i>
Actually a good many people don't use Linux so they can hack the kernel or any
other part. I happen to be one of them. Regardless of this, the fact is that
HP can only offer indemnity for a product they actually shipped. In this warped
litigious world a blanket protection statement would hypothetically open HP up
to litigation caused be a user adding copyrighted code to their particular copy
of Linux. They can bless what ships out their doors, but they can't bless
whatever someone hacks into their system. I therefore don't see the problem
with them only offering protection on standard installations. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shaun on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 06:04 PM EDT |
As I previously stated HP would never put their neck on the block if they
didn't know something. HP is not a company that would do so without a reason.
Despite some opinions I don't think HP and SCO are on friendly terms myself.
Because HP is willing to go to bat for their Linux customers there is more here
than meets the eye.
SCO knows they are losing all battle fronts and the HP annoucement clearly
places SCO on the defensive instead of the offensive. Our recent letter also
placed SCO on the defensive against end users so the bully is now beginning to
realize that this is a war they can't win based on threats and wild
accusations.
--Shaun
--Shaun[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 06:38 PM EDT |
| So what? So you give up "the freedom to modify"? Why should HP
protect you if you do something dumb like actually steal some copyrighted code?
This just seems like their way of ensuring they're not on the hook for something
just like that. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 07:06 PM EDT |
This is a customer relations ploy, and as such, it seems fair to me. I don't
agree with the following:
"Again with the binary-only baloney. What is with these people? Those of
us who use GNU/Linux choose it because we can do whatever we want with it on our
own computers. Try to get that through your heads. It's the freedom part that
matters to GNU/Linux users. It's what we abandoned proprietary software to
obtain. "
Okay, we all understand having the source and how useful that is. BUT, in this
case, with HP offering to indemnify its customers, I do not see how they could
ask anything less. Seriously- what would happen if an HP customer did copy SCO
source in their own kernel modifications of HP Linux? Not likely, but it could
happen, and then HP would be screwed. What HP is saying is this- you buy Linux
from us, we know it does not infringe upon SCO, and we will pay any costs you
might have if we are wrong.
It's a customer relations ploy and I really don't see anything wrong with it.
Would it be wrong for RedHat to come out and say, look, we are indemnifying our
product for all users who do not modify the source code? How could a company
POSSIBLY indemnify a product that others will modify- how could they know what
would be put in it. This seems perfectly reasonable to me- either accept the
indemnification and do not modify the kernel source, or go your own way and lose
indemnification.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 07:11 PM EDT |
Here's a comment I posted on the SCOX board about the subject:
Contrary to all the FUD about IBM and Red Hat not indemnifying, the exact
opposite is actually true. Let's look at the facts:
1. Is Sun defending Linux? No.
2. Is HP defending Linux? Not really.
3. Is IBM defending Linux? You bet!
Sun is just playing a shell game - pretending to offer indemnity. Instead they
are using the Linux name as a smoke screen to hide the fact that they are really
thumbing their noses at IBM and trying to switch people to Solaris and SPARC.
With Sun, it has always been about posturing and marketing BS.
HP's actions seem to suggest they are serious about continuing to promote Linux
and shielding their customers from SCO action. However, guess who keeps funding
all the SCO FUD tours and conferences: that's right boys and girls, it's HP.
IBM, on the other hand, in their counter suit, is specifically defending Linux
and the GPL. Do IBM's actions benefit only its customers? Absolutely not. By
actively defending Linux and seeking prosecution of SCO, IBM is not only
defending its customers against SCO's actions, it is also defending the
customers of HP, Sun, Microsoft, Red Hat, and all corporations, all over the
world, big and small. IBM is also defending anyone who downloads Linux, or
other GPLed applications, for free. IBM is defending every GNU/Linux and GPLed
software user and developer, whether they are grateful or not.
SCO has already attacked Linux customers, and IBM is defending them now! So who
then is really sitting on the sidelines? Is it not Sun, HP, etc? What sense
does it make for IBM and Red Hat to offer indemnification, when in fact they are
already engaged in the very action they would have taken as a result of offering
indemnification? Am I the only one who sees the irony here? I certainly hope
not.
Incredibly, the vast majority of people don't seem to realize just how
effective the SCO FUD campaign has been in suggesting that IBM and Red Hat do
not care about their customers - when in fact only IBM and Red Hat (with some in
Germany, the Netherlands, and Australia) are the ones who are actually
"indemnifying" their customers NOW!
Let's all wake up! Please.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: skidrash on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 07:16 PM EDT |
I forget which groklaw regular/HP customer posted the complaint he emailed to
Finch, but the HUGE HP banner's still there on the SCO homepage.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 07:28 PM EDT |
| Sorry PJ but I beg to differ. HP is not violating the GPL. They are offering an
additional warranty exactly as the GPL allow. This warranty does not restrict
the license. We are still free to use Linux any way we want as long as we comply
to the GPL. On the other hand HP is free to limit its warranty if it wants
to.
This warranty is designed for people that just wants to use Linux as a
platform and get the support of a big boy instead of relying on themselves. It
fits this purpose quite well. For the rest of us, it is plainly useless.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mflaster on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 07:29 PM EDT |
I don't see why this is being looked at in a negative light.
<p>
SCO said:
<p>
<it>HP's actions this morning reaffirm the fact that enterprise end users
running Linux are exposed to legal risks.</it>
<p>
Ummm, no, this means that due to FUD users are <i>afraid</i> they
might be exposed to legal risks. HP has said that they're willing to assume
all those risks, for free. Shows how much HP is concerned about them.
<p>
As far as "choosing between indemnification and the GPL", I
disagree. If SCO sends you a letter saying "We are suing you because you
have added DECSS to your linux kernel", HP won't defend you. But if SCO
sends you a letter saying "We heard that you bought Linux, therefore we
are suing you", then HP will defend you. If you've modified your kernel,
I don't see how that's relevant. SCO wants to sue because you have Linux, or
SMP support, or whatever. They don't know/don't care if you installed a DVD
player...
<p>
Mike
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mflaster on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 07:31 PM EDT |
| Ooops, sorry for the repost, in HTML
I don't see why this is being
looked at in a negative light.
SCO said:
HP's actions this morning
reaffirm the fact that enterprise end users running Linux are exposed to legal
risks.
Ummm, no, this means that due to FUD users are afraid they
might be exposed to legal risks. HP has said that they're willing to assume all
those risks, for free. Shows how much HP is concerned about them.
As far as
"choosing between indemnification and the GPL", I disagree. If SCO sends you a
letter saying "We are suing you because you have added DECSS to your linux
kernel", HP won't defend you. But if SCO sends you a letter saying "We heard
that you bought Linux, therefore we are suing you", then HP will defend you. If
you've modified your kernel, I don't see how that's relevant. SCO wants to sue
because you have Linux, or SMP support, or whatever. They don't know/don't care
if you installed a DVD player...
Mike
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 07:32 PM EDT |
| SCOX was down 9% amidst all
this indemnification hoopla. Apparently a few people see HP's offer as bad for
SCO.
I personally don't have any problem with HP's indeminification program.
If you don't want it, don't use it. You haven't lost any rights. GPL or no,
it's absurd to expect HP to indemnify a product they didn't ship. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AdamBaker on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 07:41 PM EDT |
Maybe I'm being slow but a thought occured to me today. SCO have got 2 years
after finding a copyright violation to file suit. They've said they won't go
after any other Linux vendors until after the IBM trial in Apr 05 (or later).
That doesn't give them much if any time after they were claiming copyright
violations.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 07:55 PM EDT |
| I would have to strongly disagree that HP has in any way "dropped the ball"
here, or are doing something wrong by offering binary-only indemnification. This
in no way detracts from the GPL. Here's why:
Divide the users/contrubutors
of GNU/Linux into two categories (I know there's more than that, but you can
draw a line here):
1. Home users, professional programmers & enthusiasts.
These people want to modify the code. They also are savvy enough to know that
SCO is full of it and their claims are without merit. They will modify source
and don't care whether HP or anybody else indemnifies them.
2. CIOs of major
corporations. They don't want to modify the code. They like GNU/Linux for how
much money it saves them (and I'm not talking about purchase price). They may
not know the details to judge what the merits of SCO's claims might be, and will
welcome HP's indemnification for what it is. It's insurance for them.
Don't
imagine for a second that HP is doing this because it "loves Linux". It's doing
it to protect it's own Linux services business. The indemnification is aimed
squarely at the second group, to ensure they don't get scared off by SCO's FUD.
HP knows full well that the indemnification is no use to the first group, but
they also know full well that the first group doesn't need it and know they
don't need it.
Take it for what it is - a vote of confidence. HP wouldn't
offer this if they thought it would ever be called in. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 07:55 PM EDT |
I think that you have misunderstood the GPL in this
instance, PJ.
I base that on the fact that you think HP's
indemnification violates the GPL.
The GPL applies to people who do two things:
(a) modify the source code AND
(b) distribute the modifications
As the GPL's Preamble says, "Our General Public
Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the
freedom to distribute copies of free software (and
charge for this service if you wish), that you receive
source code or can get it if you want it, that you can
change the software or use pieces of it in new free
programs; and that you know you can do these things."
I see nothing in HP's plan that infringes the right of HP
Linux purchasers to do these things.
It simply means that an HP Linux purchaser who
modifies the source code and distributes those
modifications cannot get indemnification from HP on
his modified code, and those who receive those
modifications cannot get it either.
The HP purchaser can still get indemnification if SCO
sues him over the unmodified code he got from HP.
(He might have to back up his modifications and
reinstall from his original HP disks, but that's life.)
The recipient of the purchaser's modifications never
had a relationship with HP and so, even if he/she put
the modified code on an HP workstation, cannot expect
indemnification (heck, he can't even expect it if he gets
the unmodified code, because he didn't get it from HP).
I just don't see the problem here. And I've been involved
with free software both as a developer and as an
attorney.
Unfortunately, using terms like "baloney" and lumping
companies into groups is not likely to win friends or
influence people. I remember watching the Amigoids
kill their own platform with that kind of tactic, and the
Mac-heads nearly did the same, and in the mid-1990s
it looked like Linux was on the same path. I had hoped
our industry had grown out of such things.
IAALBIANYL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: raph on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 07:59 PM EDT |
| PJ and others,
I really don't think it's appropriate to criticize HP for
this move. It makes sense to me, and also seems consistent with the freedoms
guaranteed by the GPL. I agree with you that the indemnification they offer is
not that great, but if that's the case, then no great harm done in my
opinion.
If it were true that customers were clamoring for indemnification
(which I think is a misperception promoted by The SCO Group), then presumably HP
will be seeing banner sales. If there's a demand for even stronger
indemnification, then the market will provide for that as well.
Let's look
at what the GPL says about warranties first:
You may charge a fee for
the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer
warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
Short and simple. In
particular, it doesn't say anything about what kinds of warranties you
can provide. That is as it should be.
Now, let's look at the binary-only
issue, using the analogy of radio scanners suitable for listening in on cell
phone calls. As it happens, there are a bunch of laws restricting sale or use
of such devices. Even so, it's common practice to modify the devices to
remove restrictions from tuning in these bands.
Let's say one such device
gets a particularly infamous reputation for illegal use. The manufacturer may
even start losing sales because people buying the devices fear legal
action.
To counteract this, the manufacturer may offer indemnification - if
you buy our product and get sued, we'll pay for your defense. It's a way of
saying, "our product is legal". However, in such a case, you'd absolutely expect
the indemnification to be void as soon as the user opens up the case and
installs a mod chip. Anything else would be insane.
Of course, here I've
drawn a sharp distinction between legal and illegal use. This part of the
analogy doesn't hold with Linux - people who apply their own patches and build
from source aren't violating The SCO Group's "intellectual property" rights any
more than those who got their binaries straight from Ms. Fiorina. However, this
isn't about reality, it's about how lawyers try to get reality perceived, and
how much it costs to correct those misperceptions.
By offering binary-only
protection, HP is narrowing down the facts to be determined in a potential
lawsuit. HP merely has to show (once) that the version they distribute is clean,
and the end customer vouches for the fact that the version they're using is
identical. Otherwise, you'd have to pay lawyers to argue over whether the
violation occurred in the HP version or downstream, potentially once each for
many dozens or thousands of individual lawsuits. I can appreciate HP not
volunteering to do so.
There is a real story here. HP has called The SCO
Group on its FUD that Linux providers don't offer indemnification. Unless
there's a sudden rush of business to HP from other, non-indemnifying, suppliers,
it calls into question The SCO Group's FUD that there's a real demand for
indemnification. The SCO Group is once again lying, saying that HP's move
supports their assertion that "Linux is not free". Let's focus on this, rather
than the fact that perhaps HP's offer isn't in perfect harmony with the spirit
of the GPL. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 08:07 PM EDT |
PJ is usually great, but I think PJ is wrong on this one (and the LKP too - but
the Renaissance stuff was brilliant though and should get more coverage, as is
most of GROKLAW)
The point is you only get indemnification if you don't modify your copy of the
code. This is reasonable, otherwise, somebody could simply cut and paste some
copyrighted code into their copy of Linux, and then request HP pay their legal
bills.
HP's indemnification does NOT conflict with the GPL
You still have the right to modify your own copy of Linux under the GPL. HP's
policy merely says, if you do that, then you have to pay your own legal bills if
you get into a fight.
HP's indemnification is a good thing, and you also don't seem to realize just
how wide ranging it is.
- It seems to cover ALL major Linux flavors
- It covers stuff on HP equipment. But if you have the same exact stuff on
non-HP equipment, it covers that too.
- It doesn't say no modification at all. It just says if you modify yourself,
the legal risk is on you. You are allowed to accept official patches etc., from
Red Hat and others.
- It's free
- It's NOT based on some back room deal with SCO.
- It forced SCO to go into some crazy PR spin today. First they say companies
won't indemnify, so that supports SCO's claims. A week after Darl's open
letter on this, they're saying the exact opposite. The press noticed. Wall
Street noticed. EVERYBODY noticed.
There is also a huge difference between how Sun and HP played this. Sun are
using it as a stick to beat IBM, a tool to sell Java and Solaris, and as a
half-hearted cost-based indemnification, all based on some sweetheart deal with
SCO.
HP are effectively protecting ALL Linux flavors on HP equipment.
My personal opinion is SCO's reaction press release was a major mistake in a
number of ways (Thanks HP for tripping them to do this!):-
1. Crazy reversal in position - see above
2. Mentions Red Hat by name. Ha ha
3. HP are considering suing SCO. Distorting the meaning of HP's press releases,
just might be the final straw to push them into litigation - and even if not,
will certainly give whatever faction(s) in HP support litigation a lot more
ammunition.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 08:25 PM EDT |
Saying that HP has dropped the GPL ball is a bunch of hooey. It's been my
experience that HP has some sharp cookies on staff (Stormy Peters, et al), and
I'd bet a dollar to a donut that the real motivation behind their
indemnification move is the fact that SCO is scaring some high-profile clients.
Case in point: I work for a very large corporation (70k+ employees) with a large
installed base of Solaris, HP-UX, and AIX. We've spent the last six months
working on the business case and migration plan to move that installed base to
Linux over the next five years. The hold up? Our CIO is being extra-prudent
regarding the SCO v. IBM legal situation and is waiting on a detailed analysis
(read 'warm/fuzzy') from our legal team. This announcement by HP will most
likely be the final puzzle-piece that gets us the green light to proceed. We
are a large HP customer and we have planned our migration around HP Intel kit,
but they are very aware that the SCO issue is holding us up from starting. The
non-modification clause is moot for us since we plan on using standard RHEL or
SLES. We don't _want_ to maintain the code...we have better things to do.
For non-corporate customers, this announcement from HP is pretty much a
non-event. For those of us who live in the large corporate world and have to
deal with well-intentioned PHBs, it couldn't have come at a better time.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 08:26 PM EDT |
I agree with many other posters in here. This indemnification does not conflict
with the GPL any more than Red Hat support for it's distribution.
http://www.redhat.com/support/techsupport/production/GSS_policy.html
Unsupported/Recompiled Software:
Red Hat does not support any software which is not included in our base Red Hat
Linux distribution. Red Hat also does not support any software packages shipped
with the distribution which have been modified or rebuilt from sources. Any
issues or bugs related to a modified package which is shipped with our
distribution must be reproduced with Red Hat supplied binaries before Red Hat
can diagnose or resolve customer issues.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 08:35 PM EDT |
"What I really wish is that businesses that don't grok what open
source/free software is all about would stop offering it, go back to fighting
among themselves over "IP" as if it were the Holy Grail, and leave
us alone."
Okay, I get a bit nervous when hearing strident words against "IP"
-- especially when the acronym is put into quotation marks as if it's some
leprous, unmentionable thing. I know the context here is in relation to open
source/free software, but the disparaging tone has appeared before.
IP is not bad. As an author, I rely on IP to put food on the table. PJ, as you
point out in other articles, IP is what holds free/open source software
together, especially when authored by multiple parties. IP is, arguably, the
only thing keeping SCO from devouring Linux outright.
So I'd like to remind people that "IP" is not the enemy here. Yes,
some people/entities use it in nasty ways. Fact of life. Go after the people,
not the concept.
Rant over. Cheers.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- IP IS a dirty word - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 11:25 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Nick on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 09:18 PM EDT |
Unlike most in this thread, I agree with what PJ wrote. For one thing,
indemnification is not needed for Linux. That is just SCO FUD, and
empty FUD at that. Your boss thinks otherwise? *sigh* That's the way it
can be with people who don't understand tech issues that well. Not
much can help there but education.
Playing into SCO's hands by doing precisely what they've been begging
companies to do for months is not that helpful. SCO's press release
today shows what they've been aching to do as soon as anyone stepped
forward and offered indemnifcation. FUD with a little more teeth in it,
unfortunately.
So indemnification is not needed, helps SCO's FUD efforts, and perhaps
calms some fears of some less-than-clued in bosses. Fine. But the real
problem is what PJ highlighted. You cannot have this sort of
indemnification and the GPL at the same time. Yes, I've read the
comments in this thread. Sure, if you want to just use Linux as it is, and
you like an promise of indemnification from some legal action that you
will probably never see, go with the HP promise. But if you want the
ability to control your own software, even if you never do it, but at least
want that ability, and you want to share with the community -- in other
words if you want the one key differentiator of free software from closed
software, this indemnification will not be around to help you.
SCO went around shouting today, "See! Told you Linux wasn't free."
That's what they want. They want to take this freedom away. No
thanks. I choose freedom, thank you very much. I won't even take a
baby step toward the proprietary model, and that, in essence, is HP's
offer: Leave the code alone, and we'll help you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Thanks for getting it - Authored by: shaun on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 09:32 PM EDT
- Thanks for getting it - Authored by: Nick on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 09:40 PM EDT
- SCO PR - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 11:34 PM EDT
- SCO PR - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 12:15 AM EDT
- SCO PR - Authored by: ra on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 01:48 AM EDT
- Thanks for getting it...NOT - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 09:52 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 10:02 PM EDT |
With respect, HP is not requesting that you give up your freedom to modify.
They are merely saying, if you want them to pay your lawyer bills, don't
modify. If you don't care about that or want to modify anyway, you are on your
own as regards legal risk.
That is perfectly reasonable from HP's point of view, as how can they know what
you might modify. You might copy copyrighted code into your modifications, you
might go and find some way to infringe SCO's non-UNIX patent, and so on.
That is also perfectly reasonable from the customer's point of view. If you are
doing software development, you are taking some risks, including legal ones. A
customer can hardly reasonably expect a vendor to bail them out of all legal
risks, if for example, the customer does something stupid or is not even
obligated to tell the vendor what the customer is doing (let alone paying for
the vendor to do a legal review).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 10:42 PM EDT |
| Bruce Perens got it right in his statement:
"Indemnification is really
meaningless. All of the various parties offering it will only refund your
purchase price for their software, not your real damages. So, you get nothing
that you would not get just by downloading the software from one of the sites
that distribute Open Source without charge..."
No, he got it absolutely
wrong. He is confusing indemnification with warranty. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ZeusLegion on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 10:42 PM EDT |
This board needs to be set up so it remembers us longer than it appears to (i.e.
it ain't workin' right if you just look at all the anonymous posts) so that
people won't all be accidentally posting as anonymous.
There should also be some minimal accountability here by requiring posters to
register/sign-in before posting so that we have at least some idea that the
negative responses to PJ and the community-at-large isn't just more FUD coming
from faceless agents of SCO.
---
Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 11:03 PM EDT |
"Here's my message to IBM and Red Hat on the subject of indemnification:
Please don't offer indemnification across the board. If a corporate customer
wants it and wishes to pay for it individually, go right ahead. But I don't
want it. I don't need it. Openness is my indemnification anyway. I especially
don't want you to offer it in the current circumstances."
I don't understand the logic behind this. They are offering indemnification at
no extra cost. It's kinda like telling Red Hat, "please don't offer a
[free] trial RHN subscription to everyone, only to those who want to pay for
it." If you don't want it, don't use it. If SCO sues you and you want
to litigate on your own, it's not like HP can/will stop you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 11:12 PM EDT |
"Here's the worst part. You're only indemnified if you give up certain GPL
freedoms, specifically the freedom to modify, according to this report on
Newsforge: "
Which is not permitted under the terms of the GPL. HP
cannot restrict what you do with the code.
I know somebody will argue that
HP isn't restricting you from modifying Linux, they're just revoking an
"unrelated indemnification license" if you happen to do so. That's not a valid
justification. HP is threatening to revoke their indemnification offering if you
try and use the rights afforded to you by the GPL. It's tantamount to blackmail.
I understand why HP has put this disclaimed in their offering but it
doesn't matter. They're not allowed to do this.
nathanh [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ZeusLegion on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 01:34 AM EDT |
So what happens if HP is still selling the latest OpenUnix/UnixWare/OpenServer
crap with the LKP and the LKP contains stolen Linux code?
If I'm a Kernel author, can I now turn the tables and sue all of HP's
SCoWare-using customers or will they indemnify that as well and make it easy on
me by allowuing me to just sue one deep-pocketed party like HP so I can make a
quick buck ala SCO?
---
Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ZeusLegion on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 01:51 AM EDT |
The FUD must be working because I'm not sure how to view HP's move here (other
than as suspicious and obviously motivated by its competitive need to stick it
to IBM).
I do see the argument that HP is offering to let their lawyers protect you from
law-abusing criminals like SCO in return for not modifying the source code and
that you can simply refuse that protection and modify to your heart's content
and use your own lawyers and your own money to ward off SCO if they come
knocking.
But then I remember that this is what SCO wants. They want the FUD to cause
companies to offer indemnity that must be paid for and therefore jack up the
cost of Linux so that it isn't as competitive with their sugardaddy's product,
MS Windows.
They want to increase the cost of Linux because they know Windows can't compete
tech-wise.
I have to wonder just how well HP played into SCO's hands by making its
indemnification free of charge. They fell into the indemification trap but
didn't charge for it and thus drive up the cost of Linux as SCO and MS would
want...
...unless of course HP is partner to SCO's crimes and intends to jack it up
through pricing increases for its Linux-related servers and services.
Hard to determine at this stage.
---
Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick Bridge on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 02:08 AM EDT |
I feel absolutely no fear in using GNU/Linux, and other open source and free
software, and personally wouldn't pick HP to get vendor indemnification.
I agree with 99% of PJ's articles and conclusions.
I do, however, see HPs move in a good light (as long as, as Linus pointed out,
that they have no agreement on this issue with SCO - they obviously have
licensing agreements related to Unix).
It was suggested that HP doesn't get Linux because thay restrict the
indemnification from Linux that has been modified.
Some people have even implied that HPs move is bad due to them making an
exception of Linux obtained from other sources, or when run on competitor's
hardware.
Both of these restrictions are clearly business motivated. How can any company
justify indemnifying competitor's products, or software obtained from other
sources and run on competitor's hardware? Supporting a competitor is plainly
bad for business.
It also ridiculus to expect HP to indemnify software after the end-user has
applied modifications outside the control or approval of HP. Any such user
could deliberately or accidently intoduce misappropriated code, or even patented
code, into their software. Should HP extend the scope of it's indemnification
to these users? Of course not! And since it appears that HP WILL allow
modifications, but on a case by case basis, and as such it is likely that the
job of auditing these changes will be too great to be productive, how can the
move be viewed by so many as negative?
Darl's view that this indemnification validates SCO Group's claim is absurd,
and anyone with enough of the facts will clearly come to the same conclusion.
Validating the suit is the wrong reason to avoid offering indemnification.
Lack of any real threat might be a better reason - it might sound good, but it
doesn't have any real value. HP's indemnification only includes suits by SCO
Group, and since they will not be suing end users it amounts to nothing. But
hey, they are charging nothing for it.
Most people are likely to view this as evidence that HP believes SCO Group's
suit has no merit. I do.
As Linus said "As a 'we don't believe SCO has a case, and we're willing
to put our money on it,' indemnification is wonderful. It might be a cynical
marketing tactic, but if people are asking for it, why not?"
Why not indeed.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: skidrash on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 03:03 AM EDT |
and has been doing its darndest to get IBM to fall on the weapon.
SCO's been constantly pushing PR to force IBM to indemnify IBM customers for
Linux use. WHY?
I've just realized they must have an agenda there. They have some pre-planned
attack ready to mount if IBM does take that step.
Like the licensing that was announced immediately after the RH suit, with the
flimsiest 'RH provoked us, now we're going to sue end users'.
(I'm just using this for illusrative purposes. the link between the 2 was so
flimsy as to be less than vacuum. The point is, when RH took their action, SCO
had something ready)
maybe SCO think they've found an old precedent somewhere that will give SCO the
keys to El Dorado if IBM indemnifies?
Maybe some kind of elaborate, convoluted trap using some state law?
Just thinking about it, WHY IS SCO pushing IBM to do that? What possible reason
could SCO have? Are they suggesting it out of the goodness of their hearts, for
the betterment of the Linux world?
Obviously not. So there's something else going on.
I think SCO makes enough noise about it that it's nothing as simple as an MS
marketing ploy 'we indemnify, come to us'.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nbarclay on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 05:36 AM EDT |
| PJ, you seem to be so fanatical about what Free Software means to you
that you occasionally ignore the fact that it means different things to
different people. Part of the beauty of Free Software is that different people
and companies can leverage it in different ways for different purposes.
Some
Linux users care a great deal about the ability to modify the code, but others
would not be competent to do so even if they wanted to. For them, the freedom
to modify Linux is important only indirectly in that modifications created by
other users, once tested and approved, can benefit them. Such users could
hardly care less about HP's reluctance to indemnify modifications that have not
been approved by HP or its Linux distributor partners.
Further, HP is not
actually saying that they won't indemnify modified versions of Linux.
Rather, they will handle such situations on a case-by-case basis, thereby
avoiding exposing themselves to open-ended liability. Not only does HP not have
control over what intellectual property violations others might introduce in a
modified version, but just examining each modified version to determine whether
customer-introduced violations exist would impose a nontrival additional cost
above and beyond that associated with defending standard releases. Considering
that HP is offering to take on lawsuits against thier customers for free,
restricting guarantees of indemnity to situations that do not pose special,
additional costs and complications can hardly be regarded as inherently
unreasonable. What HP is doing must be regarded as adding value for users who
do not want to modify and recompile their Linux distributions, not as taking
value or freedom away from those who do.
And if HP's offer to indemnify puts
people's minds a little more at ease about the possibility of being forced to
either deal with a frivolous lawsuit or pay extortion to avoid it, that is a
good thing. Giving customers one less thing to worry about has value, and if
providing that value helps get HP extra sales, that is part of how our economy
works. HP's goals are certainly self-serving, but part of the great beauty of a
capitalist economy is that when it works properly, self-serving moves also serve
others along the way. (FUD and other means of abusing the system are, of
course, another matter entirely.)
I also suspect that if SCO was in fact
setting a trap such that IBM's offering indemnification would supposedly play
into their hands, the trap is designed just as incompetently as anything else
SCO has attempted in their attack on Linux. The obvious traps that I can see
are, "Get IBM to indemnify, and then we can get our big bucks from them instead
of having to sue users one at a time," or perhaps, "If IBM's only choices are to
indemnify or to settle, they will settle rather than take the risk associated
with indemnifying." Such traps could work perfectly if SCO had valid claims.
But if SCO's case against individual users is as baseless (and as full of legal
landmines that could blow up in SCO's face) as we think it is, such traps are
essentially worthless. Similarly, with IBM defending both the suit against
themselves and a suit against their users (should SCO dare to file one), efforts
by SCO to double-dip would be even more glaring. So this could, for SCO, be a
case of, "Be careful what you wish for. You might get it." Of course once SCO
started spewing indemnification FUD, they had little choice but to continue
whether they still think their original strategy to take advantage of it if IBM
does offer to indemnify users has merit or not.
The scarier thought is that SCO
might use the fact that HP (and perhaps others in the future) offer to indemnify
users as leverage in threatening users who are not indemnified. But that works
only if people are foolish enough to interpret the indemnification as evidence
of strength in SCO's case rather than as evidence that the companies offering
indemnification view SCO's claims as baseless. SCO might achieve success with
some Linux users in that regard, but the nosedive SCO's stock took seems to
indicate which direction the market as a whole thinks the evidence of HP's move
points.
While I am on the subject of Free Software meaning differrent things to
different people, I think GROKLAW works at cross purposes if it wants to be
viewed as reasonably objective yet portrays Sun's efforts to promote Solaris in
the server space and Linux in the desktop space as evil. Part of the freedom of
Free Software is the freedom to mix Free and proprietary systems in whatever
ways users think best, and that can only happen if proprietary vendors' freedom
to sell their wares is respected. If the Linux community wants to get rid of
Solaris, the right way to do it is to improve Linux to a point where Linux is so
clearly superior for essentially every purpose that Sun can no longer make a
business case that Solaris offers advantages worth paying extra and giving up
freedom for. The idea that Sun should do away with Solaris in favor of Linux as
a matter of principle ignores both Sun's responsibilities to their stockholders
and the fact that as long as Solaris is better than Linux for at least some
customers, it has a legitimate place in the market.
Clearly, FUD by any company
(or, indeed, by members of the Linux community) should be exposed and countered.
But attacking a company's legitimate business efforts, be they Sun's or HP's,
just because they conflict with your concept of ideological purity is not a
great way to build credibility in the eyes of those not already predisposed to
agree with you. If GROKLAW comes across as a site devoted to promoting partisan
ideology rather than as a site that tries to lay out the facts in a mostly
objective way, I fear that that will undercut its purpose. (Or am I wrong about
the site's purpose?)
Nathan Barclay
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nbarclay on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 05:49 AM EDT |
| (Repost, with the paragraphs laid out correctly this time.)
PJ, you seem to
be so fanatical about what Free Software means to you that you
occasionally ignore the fact that it means different things to different people.
Part of the beauty of Free Software is that different people and companies can
leverage it in different ways for different purposes.
Some Linux users care
a great deal about the ability to modify the code, but others would not be
competent to do so even if they wanted to. For them, the freedom to modify Linux
is important only indirectly in that modifications created by other users, once
tested and approved, can benefit them. Such users could hardly care less about
HP's reluctance to indemnify modifications that have not been approved by HP or
its Linux distributor partners, at least insofar as their own legal exposure is
concerned.
Further, HP is not actually saying that they won't
indemnify modified versions of Linux. Rather, they will handle such situations
on a case-by-case basis, thereby avoiding exposing themselves to open-ended
liability. Not only does HP not have control over what intellectual property
violations others might introduce in a modified version, but just examining each
modified version to determine whether customer-introduced violations exist would
impose a nontrival additional cost above and beyond that associated with
defending standard releases. Considering that HP is offering to take on lawsuits
against thier customers for free, restricting guarantees of indemnity to
situations that do not pose special, additional costs and complications can
hardly be regarded as inherently unreasonable. What HP is doing must be regarded
as adding value for users who do not want to modify and recompile their Linux
distributions themselves, not as taking value or freedom away from those who
do.
And if HP's offer to indemnify puts people's minds a little more at ease
about the possibility of being forced to either deal with a frivolous lawsuit or
pay extortion to avoid it, that is a good thing. Giving customers one less thing
to worry about has value, and if providing that value helps get HP extra sales,
that is part of how our economy works. HP's goals are certainly self-serving,
but part of the great beauty of a capitalist economy is that when it works
properly, self-serving moves also serve others along the way. (FUD and other
means of abusing the system are, of course, another matter entirely.)
I also
suspect that if SCO was in fact setting a trap such that IBM's offering
indemnification would supposedly play into their hands, the trap is designed
just as incompetently as anything else SCO has attempted in their attack on
Linux. The obvious traps that I can see are, "Get IBM to indemnify, and then we
can get our big bucks from them instead of having to sue users one at a time,"
or perhaps, "If IBM's only choices are to indemnify or to settle, they will
settle rather than take the risk associated with indemnifying." Such traps could
work perfectly if SCO had valid claims. But if SCO's case against individual
users is as baseless (and as full of legal landmines that could blow up in SCO's
face) as we think it is, such traps are essentially worthless. Similarly, with
IBM defending both the suit against themselves and a suit against their users
(should SCO dare to file one), efforts by SCO to double-dip would be even more
glaring. So this could, for SCO, be a case of, "Be careful what you wish for.
You might get it." Of course once SCO started spewing indemnification FUD, they
had little choice but to continue whether they still think their original
strategy to take advantage of it if IBM does offer to indemnify users has merit
or not.
The scarier thought is that SCO might use the fact that HP (and
perhaps others in the future) offer to indemnify users as leverage in
threatening users who are not indemnified. But that works only if people are
foolish enough to interpret the indemnification as evidence of strength in SCO's
case rather than as evidence that the companies offering indemnification view
SCO's claims as baseless. SCO might achieve success with some Linux users in
that regard, but the nosedive SCO's stock took seems to indicate which direction
the market as a whole thinks the evidence of HP's move points.
While I am on
the subject of Free Software meaning differrent things to different people, I
think GROKLAW works at cross purposes if it wants to be viewed as mostly
objective yet portrays Sun's efforts to promote Solaris in the server space and
Linux in the desktop space as evil. Part of the freedom of Free Software is the
freedom to mix Free and proprietary systems in whatever ways users think best,
and that can only happen if proprietary vendors' freedom to sell their wares is
respected. If the Linux community wants to get rid of Solaris, the right way to
do it is to improve Linux to a point where Linux is so clearly superior for
essentially every purpose that Sun can no longer make a business case that
Solaris offers advantages worth paying extra and giving up freedom for. The idea
that Sun should do away with Solaris in favor of Linux as a matter of principle
ignores both Sun's responsibilities to their stockholders and the fact that as
long as Solaris is better than Linux for at least some customers, it has a
legitimate place in the market.
Clearly, FUD by any company (or, indeed, by
members of the Linux community) should be exposed and countered. But attacking a
company's legitimate business efforts, be they Sun's or HP's, just because they
conflict with your concept of ideological purity is not a great way to build
credibility in the eyes of those not already predisposed to agree with you. If
GROKLAW comes across as a site devoted to promoting partisan ideology rather
than as a site that tries to lay out the facts in a mostly objective way, I fear
that that will undercut its purpose. (Or am I wrong about the site's
purpose?)
Nathan Barclay [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: inc_x on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 06:42 AM EDT |
People that want to make modifications use Debian or Gentoo.
People that want support and "someone to sue" use a
commercial Linux vendor and stick with the stuff that that
vendor throws at them. They don't make modifications
themselves because it voids the support that they bought.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: amcguinn on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 07:22 AM EDT |
I'm trying to understand what some people are afraid of here. The only idea
I have thought of is that it could become generally accepted that Linux use is a
copyright infringement, but that it was OK to use certain unmodified versions
because of the magic "indemnity".
This is a false fear. If Linux is shown
not to infringe copyright, then everyone is safe, indemnified or not. If Linux
is shown to infringe copyright, then everyone will have to stop distributing it,
indemnified or not. Even if SCO announce that they will not sue HP or HP's
indemnified customers (which is entirely hypothetical), if redistribution and
modification of HP-distributed Linux is shown to be illegal, then at
that point HP can be prevented from distributing it at all, as they are not
able to license redistribution as they are required to do.
That's the point
at which HP's actions become a GPL violation: when SCO sues the first Linux user
for copyright infringement and wins. The moment that happens, HP and
everyone else have to stop distributing Linux, unless they can get permission
from SCO to distribute under the GPL (including redistribution), or unless they
can get separate permission from SCO and every other copyright owner of
Linux to distribute under a different license.
The key point here: Every
distributor of Linux guarantees that the code they distribute can be used,
modified, and redistributed without liability. But that guarantee is not made
to the customer, it is made to the copyright owners who have provided the GPL'd
code -- they are the ones who have given benefit to the distributor and are
entitled to make demands in return. By additionally making the same
guarantees to certain of their customers, HP are not changing anything
fundamental, but smoothing the way the legal system can work in certain
circumstances.
As I said earlier, there is a finite time through which SCO
can maintain the pretence that Linux infringes their copyright without producing
evidence in a court. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tcranbrook on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 08:36 AM EDT |
There is an article in the Miami Herald
(http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/6853050.htm)
that has a statement:
"Microsoft faces about 30 other lawsuits claiming patent or copyright
infringement."
How can we go about identifying and detailing these?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Wow! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 26 2003 @ 12:56 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: tcranbrook on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 08:46 AM EDT |
This is a good article on the issues of OSS IP
http://www.ekkobsd.org/~stephen/ip.htm
Nothing really new for the readers of Groklaw, but it is another voice.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tcranbrook on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 09:03 AM EDT |
And yet another public press article, from a lawyer this time.
http://rss.com.com/2008-7344_3-5082037.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=news
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 09:37 AM EDT |
This is an interesting article about how the misuse of copyright can render the
copyright unenforcable.
/http://interactionlaw.com/interactionlaw/id12.html
"Why would Microsoft be unable to enforce its FoxPro copyright? Because
the penalty for copyright misuse is copyright impotence, which would mean that
if Microsoft is leans too hard on a developer who is trying to show how FoxPro
can run on Linux, real infringers – the pirates – can use Microsoft’s copyright
misuse as a shield against claims of copyright infringement."
Might this also apply to SCO?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 10:03 AM EDT |
| Good stuff tcranbrook, Thanks! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 10:45 AM EDT |
PJ, I've been away on vacation over the last week, and am just now catching
up on recent Groklaw posts. I'd like to address some things that come to mind in
doing so.
First of all, and forgive me for any offense I might
unintentionally give, but I find I agree with several of the posters here
regarding the tone of the past two messages. I (along, I am sure, with many
others) have come to rely on Groklaw for insightful, thoughtful, and above all
factual reporting of the issues in the fight between SCO and {IBM |
Linux | Linux users}. The indemnification message, while containing much factual
information, does border on proseletyzing, which (in the loyal Groklaw audience)
is simply unnecessary; we already hold positions of disgust with SCO and their
blatant attempts to kill off Linux. No need to fan the flames.
With
regard to HP's offer of indemnification, I find merit in many of the posts here.
However, I must agree that HP's offer does not represent a violation of the GPL,
at least not the letter of the license. (Whether it violates the spirit of the
license is not an issue that will be settled in a court of law.) I, however,
personally choose to reject HP's offer. I will keep my freedoms, thank you very
much.
I think it is worthy of note that HP's offer has done one
constructive thing; it has flushed out yet another in the long series of SCO's
self-contradictory statements:
-
SCO: "You won't indemnify your
users, therefore you agree that there is infinging code in
Linux."
-
HP: "We'll indemnify our users against SCO's
threats."
-
SCO: "You indemnify your users, therefore you agree that
there is infringing code in Linux."
Unfortunately, this
indemnification offer also plays into SCO's hands PR-wise, so it's a mixed
blessing at best. This PR issue, like all the others in this saga, can be
countered through education and anti-FUD, which is what Groklaw of course
specializes in.
As far as forcing people to log into the system, I feel
rather ambiguous about this prospect. Certainly there is vast potential for
abuse of Groklaw from trolls and posters, but forcing potential posters to
create an account and log in might stifle the free flow of information that has
come to be such an essential part of these discussions. Allow me just to say
(speaking strictly for myself) that I would support any decision you and Mathfox
(and the others responsible for maintenance) made in this matter, but that I
would suggest that it's quite irritating in following a thread to figure out
just who is talking to who when the majority of messages are slugged as simply
"Anonymous".
Finally, PJ, please allow me to say (if nobody else has)
that, even though I may disagree with your recent posts, I still greatly
appreciate all the hard work you put into this site, and I think I speak for all
your regular readers when I say so. Please do not interpret our disagreements as
attacks; I'm sure they are not meant as such.
News flash... SCO
has just filed a patent infringement lawsuit against all manufacturers of
devices that are designed to cause an intake of air.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 11:22 AM EDT |
HP's indemnification is for HP customers.
SCO is still threatening (Okay not for a few days) to send out invoices. I think
they said by October 15 or so.
If SCO send an invoice to an HP customer, what happens next?
I think HP put a line in the sand for SCO not to cross.
The HP indemnification has also meant that SCO is reacting to news now, instead
of generating their own news/FUD.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 11:53 AM EDT |
Is SCO as stupid as they act? Their "press release" is laughable-
just about anyone with a brain understands that if there were potentially
"billions of dollars" of liability in using Linux, that HP would
never have made their indemnification offer.
I think it is quite understandable that HP only indemnifies their unmodified
distro. Look at what SCO pulled in regards to Raymonds' pleading letter to the
alleged "hacker" who was planning DOS attacks against SCO. They
really played that one. What do you think they would NOT do if HP offered to
indemnify all source code changes to their original distro. Doesn't take a
genius to figure that one out.
SCO is on the run- let's keep it that way. Make them react, don't let them
call the shots. I predict Darl McBride will have a cream pie thrown in his face
by the end of the year, but please don't anyone apologize for this prediction
<G>. Darl might set up a SCO employee to do the cream pie throwing if you
do.
We're dealing with real weasels at SCO- everyone should remember that. But in
the case of the HP offer, SCO's propaganda is very silly. And the IT media is
basically pointing this out.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 01:46 PM EDT |
I dont always understand the technical things as well as the programmers but i
do understand that EVEN if i dont know how to modify the source code,the idea
that it is limited by HP's warranty offends me when i first read it.after i
read it i have questions but it seems to be another option for businesses that
do worry about sco,so that makes it ok as long as it doesnt conflict with the
GPL.The way PJ does these articles makes us think,if you would notice she gets
conversations going about things that matter to the community.We don't have to
agree but discussion is good.It is the same way the community works with
code.One idea gets started then it is discussed and debugged and resubmitted and
the process repeats.that is Open and Freedom.I am not good with words so this
may sound like rambling again but PJ deserves the respect for the efforts to
bring the discussion into the open.we dont all have to agree but we do need to
understand why each feels the way they do.
Keep up the wonderful work PJ
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 11:40 PM EDT |
"I think it hurts GROKLAW's credibility if its choice of what side to
take comes across as being driven by a blind "Open Source = good, Closed
source = bad" mentality rather than as being driven by the evil and legal
idiocy of SCO's tactics and claims." I have to differ with that opinion.
What you have done is to describe perfectly the longstanding opinion of Richard
Stallman, the FSF, the GNU Project, and the bedrock foundation underlying all of
Debian's policies, and label it as a "blind mentality" that hurts
our communities credibility.
I love to argue about Richard Stallman's (mis)behavior as much as anybody, but
I would never agree to let his position be silenced in a debate about the
meaning of a license he wrote and has promoted for so many years, and that one
IBM has chosen to use.
A lot of people feel that there is a middle ground on the issue of software
freedom. A wise man once offered some advice that applies to the
"strings" that seem to come attached to HP's offer of defense and
indemnification. It seems applicable to our community today:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to
gain a little security will deserve neither and
lose both." Benjamin Franklin
Copyleft is just a means of guaranteeing some personal freedoms against
commercial and government interference. That interference includes letting HP
pick and choose things against your wishes or interests. It's just that simple.
I should note that HP is talking about coming to your defense, and assuming
liablility in a way that surpasses the minimum legal definition of the term
indemnification. Still, for me their terms are unacceptable, because they become
the arbiter of all my software choices and freedoms.
Unfortunately saying and doing are sometimes two very different things for HP.
They were claiming to provide 24/7 Linux support for years, when they hadn't
even lifted a finger to write a single HP printer driver. The one they finally
"sponsored" didn't include any support at all for some of their
700, 800, and 1000 series printers. Users of those models are forced to rely on
a hack to do any printing at all under Linux. You still can't get any telephone
or email support for those new HP sponsored Linux drivers, even though you've
paid as much for your HP kit as any Windows customer has. In the meantime, HP
makes promises like the ones mentioned in this article, and in headlines like
this one from 24 January of 2003:
"Hewlett-Packard, the world's largest personal computer maker said it had
annual sales of $2 billion linked to the Linux open computer-operating system,
the fast-growing rival to Microsoft's Windows." They are a Fortune 1500
company, they are an OEM, SCO signed up one of those somewhere.
Linux distributors and Linux users aren't actually involved in SCO's case
against IBM. If you don't believe that HP might be among the forces aligned
against a users interests, ask an AIX user about their rights to use that
"property". It seems that it's subject to all of those secret
contracts, licenses, and sublicenses. Amendment X contained a clause that
didn't even permit IBM to tell it's customers (mushrooms) about the
SCO/Novell/IBM Unix contract agreements or their terms. SUN and HP have one of
those secret Unix license agreements with SCO too. Both have announced plans to
help AIX customers migrate, but not to Linux. HP has also admitted that they got
one of those threatening letters that SCO sent to the Fortune 1500. They have
been sponsoring or participating in SCO events like SCOFORUM 2003 or the
upcoming SCO worldwide City-to-City Tour ever since. Are these conflicted folks
really the ones I want deciding things for me on a case by case basis? If they
really want to help, why don't they do the right thing, and join IBM in the SCO
lawsuit?
The fact is that IBM didn't choose to write some dual license (dis)agreement or
mumbo jumbo, like a few others I could mention. They have consistently used the
GPL to cover their Linux work - even in their patent licensing terms. They
didn't give the rights to their S/390 Linux port to Linus or kernel.org, they
assigned them to the FSF. Those actions speak louder than words. Nobody in
computing is larger, older, or more proprietary than IBM. They seem to have
placed a great deal of faith in the integrety of FSF. They certainly cast their
vote to give that position, or "blind mentality" as you call it,
more credence than all of the other possible positions available. Don't you
think that they deserve a voice in this discussion about the case, and the
licensing terms of the GPL'd Linux kernel? I think that IBM's actions imply
that the FSF position on software freedom is - not only okay with at least one
"Big IP Business" - but that it's actually their chosen methodology
in most instances too.
No one has to wait and see what RMS or FSF has to say about user
indemnification. Eben Moglen is Stallman's counsel at FSF. His opinions on the
issues of SCO's proposed licenses, and the need for user indemnification have
already been widely published.
As for the argument that 'the applications that I "need" just
aren't available on Linux' or that "they aren't open source". I
would simply say that necessity is supposed to be the mother of invention, not
an excuse for lack of action or a viable plan. Here is what another fellow had
to say:
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of
human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it
is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 26 2003 @ 07:46 AM EDT |
Once upon a time, in a small country named the United
Steaks, many people were happily minding their own
businesses all over the country. Except for a small
company named Silly Contemptuous Outfit. Silly
Contemptuous Outfit decided that they could make money by
getting everyone to believe that they had to move to
Uniques, Oklahoma. Of course, Silly Contemptuous Outfit
owned all the land in Uniques, Oklahoma, so it would net
them a fortune if they could get a lot of businesses to
move there and pay rent. So they produced a press release
threatening that everyone across the country would be
trampled by a herd of galloping elephants if they didn't
move.
Most of the business owners looked around and found, lo
and behold, that there were very few, if any, herds of
galloping elephants to be found anywhere in the country.
So most business owners simply ignored the press release.
But Silly Contemptuous Organization insisted, if this was
the case, why didn't anyone offer indemnity to businesses
to protect them from galloping herds of elephants?
This warning made sense to a few businessmen, who
began asking this question of their suppliers. In
particular, businessmen kept asking this of a supplier in
a really big city next to a really smelly lake. The city
was known to some people as Cleveland, and the business
was the Happy People company. The Happy People company
decided, out of the goodness of their hearts (and,
incidently, to try to get more customers) that they would
indemnify people from herds of galloping elephants, as
long as their businesses were based in Cleveland. The
Happy People company they really couldn't help businesses
who decided to move to wild animal preserves in Kenya,
anyway. Besides, they knew Cleveland well, and knew there
weren't any galloping herds of elephants within many
thousands of miles.
This was all well and good, until Silly Contemptuous
Outfit produced another press release. "See this? Happy
People Company's indemnity offer PROVES beyond any doubt
that there is a REAL THREAT from gallophing herds of
elephants! Everyone should offer this indemnity to all
businesses! Woe onto anyone who doesn't have it!"
And yet there was another group of companies that were
unsatisfied. They told anyone who would listen, "Happy
People Company's offer is totally unacceptable! This will
force companies to stay in Cleveland! What if they want
to move to Toledo? The leaders of these businesses will be
afraid of the thundering herds of elephants that might be
there! This means that the offer by Happy People Company
to indemnify businesses will cause us all to lose our
freedom."
The moral of this story is that we all live in la-la land.
The end.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bobm on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 07:07 AM EDT |
| A nice analogy and a fairly well balanced article on HP's indemnification
counter FUD.
Linus comments:
"I find it interesting that HP said
that they have no Linux-specific agreements and have not paid SCO anything for
that indemnification," Linux creator Linus Torvalds wrote last week in an E-mail
to InformationWeek. "To me, it says HP isn't too worried about the validity of
any SCO lawsuits."
h
ttp://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=15200582 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Scott_Lazar on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 06:38 PM EDT |
http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=1469713608&fp=2&fpid=36
---
LINUX - Visibly superior![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 01 2003 @ 04:32 PM EDT |
There is a legal condition of being a "Bonified Purchaser".
Basically if you buy something, even say a stolen car, and did "everything
right" when you bought it you can get to keep the car. Basically, you
must prove you had no means whatsoever by which you could have come to suspect
the sale was fraudulant.
This is why culpability for Copyright infringements rarely fall to the
end-user.
Contracting for risk insurance surely ends that for you.
Here's the tale...
HP: "Gee Joe customer, sign up for this really kewl indemnity
program!"
Now, can Joe just sign and be happy? Not really. A reasonable Joe has to ask
the question... "Indemnity for what, you say? A legal exposure for
something you are selling to me? Is this transaction of, um, dubious legal
integrity? Yes, or No."
If HP says "Yes", and Joe buys anyway, it's called willful
infringement.
If HP says "No", and Joe buys anyway, Joe can hold HP to their
claim, what with HP being a big, bad, IP based, and, um, trustworthy,
professional business.
If HP says "Maybe", and Joe buys both the product and the indemnity,
Joe falls into the "should have known" trap.
Would you buy a car from someone that gives you cause enough to ask "Is
this car stolen, or not?" And, responds, "Yea, maybe it is stolen,
you really can never know, can you? But, we'll stand up in court for you if
you get caught if you sign this here side contract."
Sign this registration, and you surely break any BFP status you might enjoy, and
once you break BFP status, SCO can go after you directly.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
