|
|
| HP Shows Its Hand |
 |
|
Friday, October 03 2003 @ 03:51 PM EDT
|
HP has put out a press release that seems to answer the Why Did They Indemnify question. It appears they had ka-ching in mind, not saving Linux from SCO: "HP Extends Linux Lifeline to Sun Customers; Offers Free Services to Help Customers Migrate to HP's Market-Leading Industry-Standard Platforms "PALO ALTO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 3, 2003--HP (NYSE:HPQ) today announced a comprehensive migration program to help move customers from Sun Solaris to HP's market-leading industry-standard platforms running Linux. The new sales and service program offers customers at no cost a combination of assessment, porting and migration services, valued at approximately $25,000, for moving applications from Sun Solaris to Linux. The program enables qualified customers to take advantage of the cost savings of open source Linux and the power and choice of industry-standard computing.
"HP's Sun migration program provides qualifying customers in the Americas with a free assessment of porting and migration needs for up to three applications; porting of one application at no charge; use of an industry-standard HP ProLiant server for up to 30 days for proof of concept testing; and an HP StorageWorks storage area network assessment at no charge to improve storage utilization. . . .
"'Customers are telling us it's time to take advantage of the economics of Linux while cutting their risk and architecting for the future,' said Marc Jourlait, vice president of enterprise marketing programs, HP Enterprise Systems Group. 'HP already offers the market's leading Linux platforms with our industry-standard servers, and we're taking accountability by now helping customers migrate to the future faster than ever.'
"HP last week became the first major Linux vendor to offer an indemnity program(1) to qualified customers for SCO intellectual property infringement claims. HP offers the industry's broadest range of Linux-based servers -- from single-processor HP ProLiant servers to 64-processor HP Integrity servers." So it appears Linus had it right when he implied it might be a cynical marketing ploy. Sun had indemnified its Solaris customers and HP may have felt it needed to do the same in order to go after Sun's customers. The "architecht for the future" phrase probably refers to Sun's money troubles, meaning HP will still be standing if Sun goes out of business, and the "cutting their risk" crack is a big hint that they aren't worrying about trying for any antiFUD to help Linux. Instead they are adding to the FUD by implying there is a risk. And to assess the "risk" realistically, take a look at the real world and how Safeway views the "risk", in an article in which Silicon.com lists their "Agenda Setters 2003": "Someone who could well have fallen into this category this year but didn't make the list at all is SCO CEO Darl McBride. He has led his company's charge to get credit for what it claims is some of its code turning up in Linux. So far the row has taken the form of a lawsuit brought against IBM, headlines in the media and SCO invoicing some users for Linux roll outs.
"However, when asked what happened when his company was served with a request to pay a SCO licence for Linux, panellist Ric Francis, Safeway's CIO, said: 'I told them to stick it. At the end of the day it is never going to fly. It's the last dying breath of a company that is never going to make money.'
"McBride - in the headlines yes, agenda setting no. There is a difference.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 05:07 PM EDT |
On HP. I had begun to dislike HP even before this after buying a Deskjet
1220PS "Postscript" printer only to pind out that that the
Postscript capabilities were all software implemented. Then the power supply
went out just a little over a year after I bought it. In checking on the
internet, I found that this was a very common problem. But HP refuses to do the
right thing on anything. And now this bit. Needless to say, HP is on the bottom
of myu list of companies that I will buy products from.
On the Safway CTO comment. We need to hear from more people like him, and it
needs to be all over the internet. The more publicity like that, the better the
anti-fud.
Glenn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Safeway - Authored by: AdamBaker on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 05:17 PM EDT
- HP Shows Its Hand - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 10:38 PM EDT
- HP Shows Its Hand - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 06:19 AM EDT
- Ka_ching Charles - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 06:31 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: MathFox on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 05:21 PM EDT |
In a sense I think it is justice that the three biggest supporters of SCO (Sun,
HP and MS) spend a lot of time and money in seducing the customers from the
other SCO supporters... *nods* justice.
It will be fun to watch the fights later on.
---
MathFox gets rabid from SCO's actions.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: chrism on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 05:23 PM EDT |
PJ:
Thank you SO MUCH for finding that "stick it" quote.
It really made me smile, and as much as I have told myself to ignore SCO's
words, and that their suit is a good thing for us, the still drive me nuts.
Chris Marshall
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 06:11 PM EDT |
| I've been wondering why HP and SCO have any kind of relationship at all - after
all why should HP "sponsor" SCOs tour of USA when they are compeditors in the
small unix market?
A few minutes with Google provides a possible reason.
For
many years Santa Cruz Operation, Caldera and then SCO had very close links with
Compaq. Of particular interest to us may be the use of SCOs OpenServer
"clustering technology for Intel servers" and Compaqs Proliant servers.
A bit
more googling shows us that Compaq has a history of sponso
ring Caldera trade show tours and, of course, Compaq also endorsed
Monterey.
There is also the Uniform Driver Initiative
(UDI) project which involved Compaq, Sun and others. (This is of some
interest as the intent was to create a common driver architecture so why did Sun
feel the need to "license" drivers from SCO recently?)
So over the years
there has been a close relationship between SCO/Caldera and Compaq.
Then HP
and Compaq merged and the resulting company is stuck with a bunch of contracts
which must have seemed harmless at the time. Then SCO went insane and HP
discovered it had a relationship it could do without.
Sadly, HP seems unable
to do the right thing and sever all connections with SCO. Instead we get these
strange press releases that are just embarassing.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: masque on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 06:52 PM EDT |
HP has put out a press release that seems to answer the Why Did
They
Indemnify question. It appears they had ka-ching in mind, not
saving Linux
from SCO.
So what? HP is a business, they're
supposed to want to
make money.
Not everyone views
things the way the FSF does. HP is in it for the
money, as is IBM. Just
because IBM's current MO coincides with
what a lot of Open Source people
want to see happen doesn't mean
they're doing it out of the goodness of
their heart, they're doing it
because it happens to be the best way to
defend themselves from
SCO's lawsuit, not to mention the positive PR
they're getting
out of it from Linux advocates.
So it appears Linus had it right when he implied it might be a
cynical
marketing ploy.
I fail to see the cynicism. It's a
marketing ploy, sure, and one that
makes sense. HP may not care about the
future of Linux, but they're
not under any obligation to. If people want
to see Linux used in the
business world, they're going to have to deal with
the way business
works. Money is what's important to business, and is the
main
motivation for what business does. I really don't see the problem, HP
is supporting Linux in a way that is also profitable for them, and
contrary
to the anti-HP FUD here on Groklaw, they're also doing it in a
way that
doesn't violate the GPL. The indemnification is a free gift for
those who
choose not to modify their Linux distribution, it is a
non-issue for those who
do choose to do so. You don't have to like
their motivations, but they're
just behaving like any other business. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SUN is getting a taste of their own medicine - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 07:15 PM EDT
- Big Deal - Authored by: tamarian on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 07:29 PM EDT
- Big Deal - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 07:34 PM EDT
- Big Deal - Authored by: Scott_Lazar on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 09:21 PM EDT
- Big Deal - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 03:49 AM EDT
- Big Deal - Authored by: fb on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 12:10 PM EDT
- Big Deal - Authored by: Sri Lumpa on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 03:51 AM EDT
- Big Deal - Authored by: sjohnson on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 10:55 AM EDT
- Big Difference between Sun and HP - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 07:58 PM EDT
- Big Deal - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 09:18 PM EDT
- Big Deal - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 03:15 AM EDT
- Big Deal - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 03:40 AM EDT
- Big Deal - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 10:14 AM EDT
- Big Deal - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 04:58 PM EDT
- Big Deal - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 09:38 PM EDT
- Big Deal - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 03:31 AM EDT
- Big Deal - Authored by: mflaster on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 10:46 AM EDT
- Big Deal - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 12:23 PM EDT
- Big Deal - Authored by: masque on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 11:33 AM EDT
- Big Deal - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 04:19 PM EDT
- Big Deal - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 05:05 PM EDT
- Big Deal - Authored by: mflaster on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 10:55 AM EDT
- Big Deal - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 12:24 PM EDT
- Big Deal - Authored by: tcranbrook on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 12:37 PM EDT
- Big Deal - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 03:08 PM EDT
- Big Deal - Authored by: tcranbrook on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 04:22 PM EDT
- Big Deal - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 09:40 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Alex on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 07:29 PM EDT |
Here are a couple interesting additions to the story.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11918
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/1003sgicompa.html
Alex[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: J.F. on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 08:53 PM EDT |
HP has been on a slow downward spiral. It used to be known for its high quality
products and great service. There was a comment above about problems with a
printer. I bought a scanner from HP a while back; it was brand new and being
pushed by HP as the top of the consumer line. Not six months later, I enquired
about a driver update for the scanner and was informed that the scanner was
obsolete and no longer supported. I would need to purchase a new scanner. This
has become the norm for HP.
Add that to their imitation of the practices of some of the worst companies out
there. Microsoft started hiring foreign programmers, stacking them ten to an
apartment meant for two, and paying them from one half to one third what they
would have to pay an American programmer. HP almost immediately followed suit.
Both wound up in trouble with the government because of this. Along comes SCOG
and its FUD. Sun is quick to use the FUD to try to steal customers from IBM. Now
HP is trying to imitate them. We're fortunate they decided to target Solaris
folks and not AIX. I don't see things getting better for HP given the track
they are on.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 08:59 PM EDT |
If I have 100 computers, 99 of them x linux no y hardware, and one running Linux
from HP on HP hardware.
Can SCO sue me for the 99 and exclude the one? (Assumeing SCO knows about all
100)?
Thanks,
Dennis[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nbarclay on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 09:11 PM EDT |
To me, the big question is whether HP is trying to increase fear among would-be
Linux users or merely taking advantage of existing fear as an opportunity to
gain an advantage by providing a service people value. One of the ugly truths
of how the law works is that even when lawsuits are ridiculous and have no real
chance of winning if the jury has an ounce of sanity, they can still be filed
and still cost money to defend. This leads to the potential for a form of
extortion in which people or companies file suits that they know they have
little chance of winning in the hope that the other side will settle rather than
accept the cost of fighting. For people who are concerned that SCO might try
such a stunt, HP's indemnification offer has value even if they know SCO would
ultimately lose in court. With HP defending them, they don't have to worry
even about the cost of winning.
On the other hand, if HP tries to play up fear of SCO in order to increase that
advantage, they should certainly be condemned for it. Such action would indeed
be both dishonest and hostile toward Linux.
For the moment, I consider it too early to judge the issue. Over time, it will
become clearer whether HP is merely offering a service to reduce fears that
already exist or whether they want to encourage fears in order to benefit at the
expense of the truth.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gumout on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 09:33 PM EDT |
Miss Didio of Yankee Group fame has a little Reuter's icon (Yankee Group is a
research arm of Reuters) at the bottom of
Yankee Group's home page. Following that link really teaches you about
heartfelt indemnification principles.
http://www.reuters.com/bottomDisclaimer.jhtml
---
THERE IS NO INFRINGING CODE[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Clifton Hyatt on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 10:31 PM EDT |
<p>Since I was bitching recently about MS's Office file security lock-in
scheme, here is the upcoming "open" version for OpenOffice
2.0.</p>
<i>4.3.2 Digital Signatures
(Michael Brauer, May 2003)
As said above, digital signatures themselves are a relatively new topic for
office applications, but the requirement to protect data from being modified has
always existed. In SO/OOo, like in other office suites, it has been addressed by
documents and document pieces that could be protected from being edited, like
text sections in Writer or tables in Calc. Sometimes the protection is a simple
option. Sometimes the protection is combined with a password. In both cases,
these features are nothing more than an edit protection built into SO/OOo. They
do not add any real security to a document, because they cannot protect
documents from being changed outside SO/OOo. This in fact has become much easier
with the introduction of the XML file formats, that even removed the little
piece of security that the proprietary and undocumented binary file formats
had.
Though the existing protection features don't offer security, they show where
demand for and benefit of digital signatures seems to be highest. Therefore,
adding digital signatures to SO/OOo in “Q” will start with adding digital
signatures to the existing protection features. This not only makes these
features secure, it also allows customers to use signatures with very little
learning effort. Most important however is that customers this way get a solid
set of digital signature features that they can use in their environment and in
their workflows. To better support digital signature based workflows from the
beginning, multiple independent signatures will be supported for one and the
same document piece. Based on customer experience with these features, support
for hierarchical signatures or other kinds of nested signatures might be added
in later SO/OOo versions as well.
To actually save digital signatures in SO/OOo files, W3C's XML Signature
recommendation will be used. It is not only a standard that very well fits into
the strategy of reusing existing standards for SO/OOo's file format, but it
also can be assumed that this standard will be supported widely in the near
future.
SO/OOo's signature features for documents will make use of the same security
framework that is used for other security features in SO/OOo, like for Basic
macros. That is to say, there will be one key management and a common set of
signature methods in SO/OOo.
In contrast to signatures, encryption is a feature that has been supported by
office applications for a long time. In "Geordi", encryption is
available for whole documents. Since there was no encryption standard available
at the time the XML file format was introduced, encryption currently is done as
a SO/OOo specific extension of the ZIP packages that contain the XML files. As
soon as encryption based on the recently finished W3C XML Encryption
recommendation becomes more widespread, that may be the case for “Q” or later,
it will be supported by SO/OOo as well. It again will make use of SO/OOo's
common security framework for key management and encryption methods.
Since the W3C Encryption specification does not only support encryption of whole
documents but also of document parts, future SO/OOo versions might also support
encryption for document parts only, like this will be the case for signatures in
“Q” already.</i>
http://tools.openoffice.org/releases/q-concept.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 10:49 PM EDT |
from:uknowho
Hp IS doing the right thing!
- they have supported Linux from early on
- at LINUX expo they have been a big promoter of LINUX
- If the want to indemnify for users who "don't" want to change the
code themselves then what does that mean? Nothing! Marketing strikes again =
"Linus was right, isn't this always the case".
- most all their product work with LINUX
- except their DVD burners do not ship with a shred of LINUX mentioned at all...
no support boo HP!
- HP has been selling LINUX clusters all over the place!
- HP is a hardware company who has more to lose from MS dominating the market
then they do if LINUX dominates!
- HP has to think of it's own shareholders and if this means playing all
against the middle then so what - they know and we all know that it does not
affect the IBM suit, or the RED HAT suit, or any SCO position one bit! BUY HP
STOCK and say rahahHP.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: NZheretic on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 01:08 AM EDT |
From the HP press release emphasis
added (1) The indemnity program requires customers to sign an
indemnity agreement that outlines the covered claims, rights and
responsibilities of HP and customer. For more details please visit
www.hp.com/linux. HP reserves the right to modify or cancel the indemnity
program at any time. HP current so-called indemnity has more
loopholes than Microsoft so-called
indemnity.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 01:10 AM EDT |
Years ago! Seriously, check out the writeup here:
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1600684464&
amp;tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=49169
Here's a quote:
'Finally, from the settlement agreement in the USL vs BSD case (which binds SCO
as a succesor and assignee of
USL):
h++p://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/930610.ucb_complaint.txt
... (d) For an Order permanently enjoining USL, its
agents, employees, *****successors, and assigns ***** and all others in
concertand privity with it from making false and misleading statements regarding
the origin of those portions of system V, Release 4 and related documentation
that contain, use, or are based on, BSD software or documentation and from
engaging in unfair and deceptive business acts and practices."
Their public claims of the famous "80 lines" put them in direct
violation, especially since it was shown rather quickly that these were
originally BSD chunks of code. This opens SCO to lawsuits from a lot of pieople
for violating thier court ordered settlement. Prima facia evidence would quickly
get a restraining order slapped if UC Regents wanted to do this.'
What do you guys think? How soon can we put that into practice?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Upholder on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 02:12 AM EDT |
| Hewlett-Packard and IBM are the latest companies to face court over so-called
proprietary components of the software
http://www
.svbizink.com/headlines/article.asp?aid=5018&iid=320
The article makes
it sound like HP has been taking the lead in the fight against SCO from the
beginning and seems to buy the argument that methods in UNIX can't be used in
Linux without infringing on someone's (SCO's) IP rights. feh.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 04:16 AM EDT |
| Look at the top of this page. As far as I can see, patch@hp.com is the
maintainer that placed the SGI ate_utils.c file into the Linux kernel tree, and
later deleted it.
patch@hp.com Bitkeeper
(1) This same
company later sponsored the SCOFORUM 2003 slide show which highlighted that same
ate_utils.c file. It is also sponsoring the city-to-city SCO circus.
(2)
They are offering indemnification, but are NOT offering to indemnify IBM, SGI,
or Red Hat for the harm their ate_utils.c boo-boo has caused. Note: SGI's and
HP's AT&T licenses allow them to exchange modified malloc.c's with new copyright
notices between each other to their hearts content. See the provisions of
paragraph 7.06(b). Who actually released it to kernel.org?
(3) They ask that
customers send the their patches for review and approval - like the one
ate_utils.c presumably got - before applying them to their machines.
Can
anyone explain why a rational person should do business with this two-faced
back-stabbing bunch? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 05:34 AM EDT |
Cynical marketing ploy? A marketing ploy, of course, but I don't get the
cynical part. No more cynical than RedHat filing suit to protect its interests
in Linux. That's just how businesses operate- they spend cash to further their
interests.
It's no more cynical than the Asian countries that are planning on developing
an open source OS to further their own goals. Do you think this OS will be
built for free? I don't think so- programmers need to get paid too. Alot of
cash will be spent to provide this open source OS, and development is not for
altruistic reasons- it's what the market demands. It makes applications
development much easier.
Even Stallman realizes that programmers need to earn cash, and if you read his
articles, I don't think he expects them to work for free. There are ways to
make money from open source, and the smart people are doing it.
Take Apple- OS X is open source, at least the foundations. Should Apple have
also provided all of the source for their GUI and other layers? I don't
believe so- they would just have been doing work for free. And someone like
Gates would capitalize on.
I don't see any conflicts between people donating time and effort to creating
open source, and business uses of that code. Because it is probably furthering
the careers of these programmers in some way, and they enjoy doing it. At least
that is the reason I do it, not adherence to some utopian ideal that says I must
write software for the benefit of all.
Anybody that wants to argue about open source's purity, well, tell me what your
job is. Are you a doctor? Okay- e-mail me because I would like to have a
doctor I could visit for free. That's the right way to work, you must
understand- for free. Any drivers out there? Well, my business could save lots
of money if you would donate just 2 days per week to deliver packages for us-
for altruistic reasons, of course, and for free. Housewives? Well, I would
like for a couple of cheerful workers to clean house 4 or 5 days a week for
free, because it would make my life much easier.
Open source software gets written because programmers like to write it and
because it furthers their careers. If we didn't like doing it and it didn't
help to make us better programmers and to make us more marketable, it wouldn't
get written. many of us do feel that it helps society too- and that is an added
benefit. But as for me, if helping society were the only reason to do open
source programming, I'd rather pop open a beer and do some serious
relaxation.....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 07:14 AM EDT |
SGI says it removed potentially infringing code from XFS, but SCO says
"that's
not
enough".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SGI code changes not enough, says SCO - Authored by: tamarian on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 08:05 AM EDT
- Impossible - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 10:38 AM EDT
- Impossible - Authored by: ikh on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 12:31 PM EDT
- 1998 - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 12:49 PM EDT
- Impossible - Authored by: tcranbrook on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 12:52 PM EDT
- Impossible - Authored by: ikh on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 01:48 PM EDT
- Cynical - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 04:33 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 01:41 PM EDT |
Maybe here is part of the reason that people seem to be disagreeing so much over
HP's indemnification- that open source software isn't "free"
software, necessarily. As Mr. Stallman points out:
Richard Stallman, president of the Free Software Foundation, writes:
"Actually we advocate free software (free as in freedom), and have done so
since 1985. This means users should be free to study, change, and redistribute
software much as cooks study, change, and redistribute recipes. The open source
movement was founded years later, in 1998, by people in the free software
community that liked our software and practices but rejected our ideals."
(found in an editor's note here- http://www.ectnews.com/perl/story/31166.html)
I think if one believes in free software, one would not have a problem with
HP's move. HP is free to do as it likes, so long as it doesn't violate the
GPL. Now, alot of "open source" people don't like this, but many
of them seem to be against freedoms, according to some of the posts that I have
read.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- HP Shows Its Hand - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 02:29 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 04:12 PM EDT |
>Because you acknowledge and pay for that support upfront. If you want that
support, then you agree not to modify the software they supply. That's your
choice.
Of course! And if I want the idemnification from HP, I have to agree to the same
things and it is still my own choice. So I still don't see the difference here.
>The difference with HP is that HP should know that SCO can't sue end-users
for infringement. Yet they are offering to indemify their customers for
something they should know is impossible under current copyright law. It's
purely a cynical manipulation of SCO's threats for marketing purposes.
It's a marketing campaing, yes. If people want this idemnification, let them
buy it! If someone buys a HP with RedHat because of this, great! It is still one
more Linux-user! And even better: This idemnification thing hurts SCO and Sun.
>If they truely wanted to protect their Linux customers, they could either
file their own suit against SCO, or join or support Red Hat with their suit, or
at the very least match Red Hat contribution to their Linux defense fund.
There might be legal reasons not to support RedHat directly. HP could be
sponcoring RedHat indirectly from what I know. Like Microsoft buying licenses
they don't need rather than paying for the litigation. Also, I think you can be
pretty sure that HP files a suit when one of their customers receives the
invoice from SCO for their HP servers running Linux. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- HP Shows Its Hand - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 04:38 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Scott_Lazar on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 12:26 AM EDT |
Probably posted elsewhere, but here it is anyhow:
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3087711
Looks like mutual blood-letting. Everybody stand back and give them both plenty
of room!
Scott
---
LINUX - Visibly superior![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
