decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Novell Offers to Indemnify
Monday, January 12 2004 @ 11:05 PM EST

It's being reported that Novell is adding to the weight of the tsunami headed toward SCO. They too will offer indemnification.

Now Linux enterprise users will be able to pick whatever they like: the OSDL Legal Defense Fund, HP indemnification, Red Hat's legal fund for programmers, IBM's broad shoulders and the freedoms guaranteed and protected by the GPL, or Novell's copyright infringement indemnification.

While indemnification tied to support contracts is not the devil incarnate, this kind of indemnification has some issues. Invariably they tell you what you can and can't do with your code, which is a good way to lose the extraordinary benefits Linux provides over proprietary software. It can lead to the very death of GNU/Linux software development, in my view, because only the largest companies will be able to afford to offer it. Linux isn't primarily developed by such companies.

Now, Novell and HP may not care about that, but I do, because the innovation in free and open source software comes from individuals, not primarily from corporations. Anything that shuts that creativity down is foolish. And there are conceivable conflicts with the GPL, depending on what restrictions a company tries to place on the code in order to indemnify.

The Novell indemnification has another quirk. From what I hear of it, they are offering to cover not just your legal fees but damages up to a certain level. I think there is a real possibility that this would put a bull's eye on your back. Here's why I think so.

One reason SCO's McBride and his chorus continually harp on indemnification, in my view, is because if everyone offered it, they could sue any little old company anywhere and still collect big bucks if they won.

OSDL was careful not to offer to pay off judgments. The beauty of that arrangement is that while SCO would then be faced with highly skilled legal teams against them, they wouldn't be guaranteed much of anything if they won, unless they chose to sue a fairly large company with deep pockets. With Novell's indemnification, it just might tempt them to give it a whirl, because they at least have a shot at a million and a half per victim. Here is what the Wall Street Journal says about the indemnification:

The company plans to provide customers with protection from copyright infringement lawsuits to the tune of $1.5 million, or a factor of 1.25 of their software purchase price.

SCO's legal actions against Unix and Linux are rippling across the industry. But the Novell initiative highlights the response now under way. "It seems like there is a groundswell of support focused on pushing this issue aside," IDC analyst Al Gillen said.

There is a lot pushing against SCO, that is for sure. But what do you have to do to get the indemnification? And what does this offer from Novell tell you they think of SCO's odds? Here's what Novell's Messman says:
"We've got a license to use the Unix technology with our Novell customers," he said. "That license allows us to use any Unix code that might be in Linux--we don't believe there is any--but if there is, we are allowed to use it and we allow our customer to use it."...

SCO had to request what it needed to run its Unix business in order for the copyright transfer to take place, Messman said, "and they did not make a request."

Clearly, Novell feels confident that they own the copyright to Unix and they don't believe there is any infringing code in Linux. A lawsuit from SCO challenging them on copyright ownership or on a contractual issue is very possible, and they know it, and they are forging ahead full steam. Here is what InfoWorld says about the indemnification:
The program will be available free of charge to customers who purchase SuSE Linux Enterprise 8, along with Novell's 'upgrade protection' software maintenance plan and a support contract, from either Novell or a qualified Novell channel partner....

Novell's indemnification would cover SuSE Linux Enterprise on any type of hardware, and would protect customers from legal action by any company, not just SCO.

You don't have to use any particular hardware either. They indemnify enterprise SuSE period. Here's why:
Jack Messman, chief executive of Novell, said in an interview the company is able to indemnify customers because of its history with Unix. Novell sold its Unix Systems Labs unit to a predecessor of SCO in 1995. Messman said Novell retained the copyright to Unix in that deal, a point that SCO disputes. Messman also said Novell has the right, under the contract, to license Unix to its customers for their internal use. "We are in a unique position - nobody else has the copyright or the license," Messman said.
IBM has already put its money on OSDL. Here's their official reaction:
IBM doesn't need to protect its customers against lawsuits because it considers SCO's claims to be baseless, said Mike Fay, a spokesman for the Armonk, New York-based company.

"Our position has not changed and we will continue to fight this in court," he said."

Red Hat will not be hopping on the indemnification bandwagon, and neither will I. I have been talking with some folks and I think there is a better way, a vendor-neutral way, to provide protection without the obnoxious limitations on what you can do with the code that indemnification plans require, which I hope to tell you about soon.

Meanwhile, if you are curious which companies were awarded the most patents this year, here's the list:

1. IBM;
2. Canon;
3. Hitachi;
4. Matsushita Electric;
5. HP;
6. Micron Technology;
7. Intel;
8. Koninklijke Philips Electronics;
9. Samsung;
10. Sony.

  


Novell Offers to Indemnify | 99 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Novell Offers to Indemnify
Authored by: Stumbles on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 12:20 AM EST
Sigh, I thought Novell had better sense.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Offers to Indemnify
Authored by: fmckee on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 12:23 AM EST
Thank you PJ for putting to words my view on indemnification. I figured out
early on that what SCO wants, is probably not good for the rest of us. They
sure have been pushing hard for that haven't they? I think you've done a
pretty good job on anticipating the "now what" for what will be
surely coming.

Thanks again, for all your efforts!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Offers to Indemnify
Authored by: creysoft on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 12:24 AM EST
Time will tell, but I think this article highlights an important feature of Linux that seems to be transferred to everything it touches - choice.

You can take your pick. OSDL type 'legal fee protection' or Novell type limited idemnification. (I.e. they cover you, but only up to a certain amount. And you have to accept restrictions, sometimes.) Some people (Like PJ and I) will feel more comfortable with the OSDL type security. Others (Corporations for example) may feel more comfortable with the Novell model.

At least SCO has to stop claiming that 'Nobody is willing to offer idemnification so we must be right.' And something tells me that if anybody knows the Unix codebase, it's Novell. Just my $0.02.

---
Fear th3 Platypus

[ Reply to This | # ]

Minor Point
Authored by: surak on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 12:31 AM EST

You don't have to use Novell hardware either

Novell doesn't make or sell hardware. They're strictly a software company.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Offers to Indemnify
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 12:34 AM EST
A few trivialities:

"It's being reported that Novell is adding to the weight of the tsunami headed toward Utah"

Since Novell is also in Utah and about 10 miles from SCO, that tsunami might not be a very good idea. On the other hand, it could do wonders for the drought.

"You don't have to use Novell hardware either."

Thank goodness, since all Novell hardware is a couple of decades old.


Can't help but give you a hard time, PJ. You're doing a wonderful job. Please keep up evelgood work. :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not Who, but Why might SCO sue?
Authored by: whoever57 on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 12:40 AM EST
The question of who SCO might sue has been explored in Groklaw in many posts,
but I think the first question is "why": or better still, what will
SCO claim?

No Groklaw faithful believes that SCO has any claim against a Linux end-user
that would not be laughed out of court in minutes, so what are the alternatives?


My guess, based on the suggestion that SCO will sue a company that uses both
Unix and Linux is that, if SCO sues anyone, it will be based on claims of
copying SCO's libraries.

When this whole mess started, SCO talked about people copying SCO's libraries
over to Linux systems. These libraries are required if you want to run some
software compiled for an SCO system and it is dynamically linked against the
libraries.

My guess is that they feel that they could confuse jounalists and analysts by
suing a Linux user. The fact that such a suit would have nothing to do with
Linux could be lost in the FUD.

---
-----
For a few laughs, see "Simon's Comic Online Source" at
http://scosource.com/index.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Offers to Indemnify
Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 12:48 AM EST
I just had a PT Barnum type thought;

1) Hypothetical Company gets indemnification from Novell. (pays bucks too)
2) SCO being SCO, sues said company.
3) Novell waives SCO lawsuit.
4) Novell Profit ?

---
SCO directly to jail, do not collect two hundred dollars.
BTW - I never have been mistaken for a Lawyer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Offers to Indemnify
Authored by: afore on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 12:54 AM EST
I just wonder if Novell is doing this to get SCO to sue them? It does not make
sense otherwise.

Art

[ Reply to This | # ]

Pure PR
Authored by: shoden on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:00 AM EST
This is purely a PR move to shut up SCO.

The people that own SysV are now telling the press that SUSE Linux, which
includes the kernel as well as all those header files, is untainted and they
aren't afraid to put their money where their mouth is.

They are in the unique position that if SCO sues an end user running SUSE,
Novell will be able to put off that lawsuit and make it clear to the press that
SCO's ownership of UNIX claims are very suspect at best...

Pure PR.

---
S.K.

MR. MCBRIDE: Your Honor, I have a smaller, obviously --

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Offers to Indemnify
Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:09 AM EST
I don't like idemnification unless it's conditional: the condition being that
the targeted corporate end user will put up a hell of a fight and that he or she
will take his or her legal cues from OSDL, IBM or Novell. I also don't like
idemnification, because the idea of idemnifying a corporate end user who is
interested in Linux only for the freeloading aspect makes me puke: I just don't
think that kind of conduct should be rewarded. In terms of code modifications, I
am fairly sure that Novell will treat these code modifications on a case by case
basis to make sure it won't be ambushed in court over dubious code provenance.

I personally prefer the legal defense funds, which speak more effectively of
standing behind the product than any talk of idemnification. Both IBM and RH are
demonstrating support for Linux by confronting the SCO Group in court and in the
long run, this approach is the most effective because it brings the war to the
SCO Group's doorstep. I view idemnification as a fairly passive approach with
some undesirable side effects.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A couple of nuances about Novells move
Authored by: Captain on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:17 AM EST
I think there are a couple of nuances about Novells motivation to do this.

1. The move may have come from genuine customer concerns. It's possible that
certain less savvy customers (existing and potential) bought into the SCO
indemnification FUD and asked Novell about indemnification.

2. This is PR, but not necessarily against SCO. It's pro-Novell. They position
the indemnification as a selling point for Novell Linux. It's about sales, not
ethics or legal strategy.

Just my $0.02

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Offers to Indemnify
Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:23 AM EST
Here is the Novell page with links to copyrights and communications with the SCO Group. Novell Links

I hope the link works

---
SCO directly to jail, do not collect two hundred dollars.
BTW - I never have been mistaken for a Lawyer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Offers to Indemnify
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:27 AM EST
2 points:

1. The indemnification agreements I've seen depend on the customer not
modifying the software. That's really a non-issue. The great majority of
Linux users do not have the interest or resources to modify the software.
The big advantage to open source is not the ability to modify. Open source is
far more stable and more secure that a closed-source system could ever because
it has been reviewed by many, many more people. We also have confidence that an
open-sourcee software vendor has not put in anything that can violate our
privacy without our knowledge.

2. SCO can be expected to make some huge FUD-spreading announcement on the date
of the next court hearing. IBM will be talking about summary judgment while
Darl and his accomplices will be calling press conferences and making
announcements to try to keep the stock pricee at its current inflated level.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Indemnification not ALL bad
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:29 AM EST
I believe that indemnification programs such as HP's and now Novell's serve a
useful purpose. While the limitations of such programs (no modification,
software maintenance plans, etc) might seem onerous for some, they might be
ideal for others.

An example would be an end user who wants a simple point of sale and accounting
system. In essence they are buying a 'black box' that does the job for them.
They are not interested in modifying the code, and are perfectly happy to sign
up for a software maintenance/upgrade plan. They may be aware that the
underlying OS is Linux and may also be aware of the SCO lawsuit. A vendor
policy that guaranteed indemnification of legal costs and adverse judgements to
the tune of 125% of their purchase price would be one item to consider in their
purchase decision.

The vendor is simply telling the customer through a monetary guarantee that
'there are no IP infringements in the system that I am providing'. Sort of
like a Y2K compliance guarantee (remember them) that offers to pay for damage
caused by non-compliant systems.

In the end, I believe that this is a short term issue. Eventually SCO will lose
big time. This loss will discourage for some time to come any company who might
want to run a similar scam. Those who promised indemnification will be able to
discontinue the programs as no longer required. A good use will have to be
found for the unused portions (probably close to 100%)of the defense funds.
Linux will be accepted as a mainstream OS and continue to be distributed
(unchallenged) under the GPL.

My $0.02 (cdn) worth.

Jack

[ Reply to This | # ]

a mighty wind
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:30 AM EST
To quote my favourite Nero impersonator, swaggering addle-pated coxcomb Dorkwad Dan Lyons, 'what SCO wants, SCO gets.'
I mean, just yesterday, Dynamic Darl proclaimed:
'If vendors feel so confident with the intellectual property foundation under their massive contributions into Linux, then they should put their money where their mouth is and protect end users with true vendor-based indemnification'
Then poof! Within 24 hrs he's chewing on his own bootleather!
I can't wait to see the spin The Three Faces of SCO put on this one.
Thanks again,

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Offers to Indemnify
Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:31 AM EST
SCO's latest press release states that:

The actions of these vendors today doesn't change the fact that SCO's intellectual property is being found in Linux. Commercial end users of Linux that continue to use SCO's intellectual property without authorization are in violation of SCO's copyrights. SCO continues to publicly show evidence of this infringement. We invite interested parties to view some of this evidence for themselves at www.sco.com/scosource.

I got excited, figuring they had finally put up some serious evidence for all to see. Surely they couldn't be trotting out the SCOforum code again? Must go look...

Hmmm. This is the same old scosource page I remember. Where is this evidence they crow about? There's a link to their ABI letter, but that's all. I guess that's still the sum total of the evidence they are presenting thus far?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's finance
Authored by: IMANAL on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:32 AM EST
Just to give an idea of pocket sizes of the guys now involved. Yes, yes, I know there is more to it... Check the rest of those figure at Yahoo finance.


Symbol Market Cap Employees
SCOX 222.92M 340
MSFT 298.10B 55000

RHAT 3.63B 566
SGI 622.66M 3714
NOVL 4.42B 6524
SUNW 17.80B 36100
HPQ 75.25 B 141000
NIPNY 13.29B 147004
IBM 157.50B 315889

[ Reply to This | # ]

What abot SCO Indemnifying their users
Authored by: smtnet1 on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:50 AM EST
SCO have been pushing for Linux indemnification so that they can get big bucks
if they sue a small company.

I think we all need to push SCO to indemnify their UNIX and Linux customers
against infringement of IBM patents, and the infringement of the GPL that are
part of the IBM countersuit.

So far SCO have refused to indemnify their customers and keep talking about
Linux. There is no AT&T code in Linux otherwise the various UNIX source code
licensees would have found it and removed it.

I think it would be worth demanding that SCO indemnify their customers, as a
counter attack to the FUD missiles that keep getting launched from Utah.

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Interesting Question
Authored by: DaveAtFraud on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:53 AM EST
Usually I describe the questions I ask as "dumb questions" but, this
time (in my not so humble opinion) I think I have an interesting question.

As the indemnify vs. don't indemnify debate swirls, an interesting question is:
how many of the companies that use Linux in a server capacity actually modify
the source code? I'm not talking about companies that distribute an embedded
Linux product (e.g., a PDA with a Linux OS) or Linux drivers (e.g., video,
network or sound cards) but companies who simply want to have say a web server
or file server, etc., or, for that matter, a common Linux based corporate
desktop.

While I agree that the restrictions that indemnification puts on innovative code
modificatios are not a good thing, I think getting too wrapped up over
indemnification of a licensed product may be making a mountain out of a mole
hill. Where I work is a small company (less than 65 employees) and we make a
Linux hosted network monitoring product (so we have the expertise) but I would
scream loudly and longly if someone suggested that we modify either the product
base OS (Red Hat 9 or Enterprise) or modify a commercial Linux distro for one of
our own servers (oh, an I'm the QA Manager).

It just doesn't make ecconomic sense to create and maintain your own special
version of Linux so you offer the mod back to the maintainer for inclusion in
the baseline source. Otherwise, you have to continually apply your specific
patch every time the distro vendor provides an upgrade which means testing,
logistic, and support nightmares (I already mentioned that I'm the QA manager)
and, if you mod the product base OS, you have to worry about a customer applying
a mod from the distro vendor that breaks the product. The bottom line here is
someone would need to make a really good case as to why the Linux source code
from a standard distro should be modified for any kind of customer/public facing
system. Conversely, if a company only uses a modified version of Linux
intenally, their exposure is limited and would be lessened even more if they
provided the mods back to the maintainer. I'd also be surprised such a company
were using either an HP or SuSE server distro and had to modify the source code
to make it work.

To me, the primary benefit of open source to most people is not that they can
modify the code as it is shipped by a distro (although they can if the need
arises which is nice) but that there is no fear that they will be stuck on an
upgrade treadmill as the vendor EOLs a version of the OS that is critical for
them. My guess is that most corporate users stay with a standard distribution
and don't modify it unless absolutely necessary and then usually with someone
like me asking (demanding would be more like it) how long the local patch will
need to be in place before an official patch from the distro is available. This
doesn't say we (or others) won't modify source code but my experience has been
that the mod will be provided back to the maintainer so that we don't have to
maintain it ourselves. Its just too much work and the risks (even without SCO)
are too great.

Admittedly, there are probably a few companies (Google comes to mind although I
don't *know* that this is the case for them) who probably run a modified
version of the Linux kernel and who may or may not choose to provide their mods
under the GPL. I see examples like Google as being very few and far between
while tweaks to applications don't seem to interest SCO (at least not yet).
Because of this, I see very few companies changing how much work they do to
create modified versions of the Linux kernel due to indemnification
restrictions. Who knows, some may actually release their otherwise proprietary
mods under the GPL so that their mods eventually becomes part of the baseline
and comes back in a distro. This will also bring additional pressure to bear
against companies that require a patched kernel for their drivers (which may not
be a bad thing).

---
Quietly implementing RFC 1925 wherever I go.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SuSE: SCO Poses No Threat
Authored by: seeks2know on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:59 AM EST

While pondering Novell's indemnification, I recalled something about SuSE claiming that they were safe from legal action from SCO. After a little searching, I found an article on ZDNet from last May. Here are is a portion:

An agreement with SCO Group protects Linux seller SuSE from legal action stemming from SCO's accusation that Unix software was copied into Linux, SuSE said.

"We have a joint development agreement with them, which includes appropriate cross-licensing arrangements," said SuSE spokesman Joe Eckert on Friday. "Our lawyers feel that covers us from any actions that SCO may take."
Is Novell relying on this protection as part of their indemnification plan?

---
The beginning of wisdom is found in doubting; by doubting we come to the question, and by seeking we may come upon the truth. - Pierre Abelard

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Offers to Indemnify
Authored by: RSC on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 02:59 AM EST
What? No Microsoft?

I would have thought they would be well up in the top 10...


RSC


---
----
An Australian who IS interested.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO doesn't offer to Indemnify
Authored by: Rcomian on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 03:26 AM EST
After all this song and dance about their IP in linux and the need for indemnification, section 7.0 of the "licence" for linux, Limitation of warranty:
ALL WARRANTIES, TERMS, CONDITIONS, REPRESENTATIONS, INDEMNITIES AND GUARANTEES [...] (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS) [...] ARE HEREBY OVERRIDDEN, EXCLUDED AND DISCLAIMED.
(emphasis mine)
Huh ...
(Full text at http://lwn.net/Articles/43085/)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Offers to Indemnify
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 03:55 AM EST
(To me it sounds a bit silly to talk about patents being "awarded".
It's like being "awarded" a degree for life experience from a
prestigious non-accredited university. Why not just talk about patents being
"bought"?)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can you tolerate one more...
Authored by: the_flatlander on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 05:01 AM EST
Me too response? And I don't mean Novell, I mean me.

Yes, I suppose PJ could be right about SCO's motive in trying to compell
"strong indemnification."

Yes, I suppose indemnification, as offered by HP and Novell, for example, could
have a chilling effect on the benefits we all gain from GNU Linux.

IANAL. But take a deep breath everyone. Users are not liable for developers'
actions. Darl's theory that liability for Linus's stealing SCO's code got
passed to me because Linus offers no warantee that Linux will actually run is
not going to stand in court. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not ever. Why am I so
sure? Because copyright violation is a criminal activity, no? If some other
guy robs the bank, I am not going to jail for it. Even if he hands me a stack
of the cash, *I* did not rob the bank and while I suppose the DA could charge me
with robbing the bank, I don't see how the jury could convict me... the
security tapes show it wasn't me. Darl's only hope in gaining acceptance of
his theory is that many of us are basically ignorant of, and distrustful of the
legal system, particularly with regard to tort law, but it is very rare, really,
that a decision defies logic and withstands appeal. Have faith, our courts will
not let us down. The system is not perfect, but it mostly works.

This whole ugly affair is still as fascinating as a train wreck; I can not avert
my eyes, but it is already over. SCO Group is done. They passed their high
water mark back in late December. And IBM's counter suit may not go away, nor
Red Hat's, but SCO's is almost gone, another month or two. If you've hung
out here for long you've read the filings. SCO, even had they a case, would be
doomed because they are so thoroughly outclassed, and, as it is, on their on
"merits" their arguments are, to quote ESR*, "a tissue of
lies, deliberate distortions, and flimflam."

Back in the real world no one is buying licenses from SCO Group. No one is
thinking hard about their claims, because they haven't noticed. As a PR stunt
this case was a total flop, you and I paid attention, but only because we cared,
and already knew enough to know it was a put up job from the start. The rest of
the world, to the extent that they even noticed the case at all, just figured
the courts would sort it out. (And they will.)

I suspect that the real motive for screeching about indeminfication is to give a
legal sounding name to a novel, untested and doomed legal theory. You'll note
that Red Hat missed the point altogether by offering indemnification to the
people who might actually *need* it. Developers. Darl wasn't happy about that
because it ignored the whole point of his FUD campaign, namely: If you *use*
Linux you are at risk. Nope, I'm not. But any company that offers me
indemnification is simply aiding Darl's FUD campaign by offering the
apppearence of legitimacy to his idiotic theory.

</rant>

TFL

*http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween9.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Offers to Indemnify
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 05:39 AM EST
Great words from McBride (taken from
http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?symbols=NASDAQ:SCOX&story=200401
130928_PRN__LATU068):

<On the topic of Novell's recently announced indemnification program,
McBride stated, "We believe Novell's indemnification announcement is
significant for a couple of reasons. By announcing the program they are
acknowledging the problems with Linux. Through the restrictions and the
limitations on the program, they are showing their unwillingness to bet very
much on their position." >

I am wondering how Novell could so openly admit that they are aware of the
problems with Linux, and that they are in such a bad position.
(Frame of reference coud be: "The World according to D. McBride" if
a book like that exists).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell - SuSE acquisiton complete
Authored by: lnx4me on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 08:47 AM EST
The deed is done.
Wonder what will be the next step?
Bob

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Offers to become a SCO!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 09:11 AM EST
Novell by attempting to exploit their "unique" position is
attempting to force customers of Linux to use Novell Linux (Suse). This leaves
all 30 other distributions and independent developers out in the cold. I don't
like the implications of going to a Novell monopoly anymore than a SCO monopoly.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Offers to Indemnify
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 09:29 AM EST
Putting this together with some recent thoughts on Microsoft paint a somewhat
scary picture. Daryl has been challenging linux vendors to offer
indemnification, over and over and over. One has to ask why. What good comes
to SCO by having linux indemnification? Why indeed?

Perhaps SCO (being MS' sock-puppet) has a goal to get indemnification offered
by linux vendors, as part of their deal with Microsoft. Once such
indemnification is offered, then MICROSOFT can step in and crush all the vendors
at once with sweeping litigation of their own. A $10 million fund won't hold
out long against the coffers held in Redmond. They hold a vast patent arsenal,
and though most of the patents they hold are for stupid things, odds are that at
least one of them appears in linux somewhere.

This may be MS' chance to take out all the linux vendors at once. Line 'em up
and knock 'em out. (At least all of them offerning indemnification.) It's
too hard and expensive to go after each customer, but hitting the vendors is far
more reachable.

While we're all cheering about this indemnification, I still wonder what's the
big deal, and why doesn't SCO or MS offer indemnification if it's so
important?

Just thinking out loud...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Offers to Indemnify
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 10:07 AM EST

Hasn't Darl, et al., been claiming that the lack of indemnification was proof of IP problems in Linux?

Well, now in this article he claims the indemnification by Novell is proof of IP problems in Linux.

McBride stated, "We believe Novell's indemnification announcement is significant for a couple of reasons. By announcing the program they are acknowledging the problems with Linux. Through the restrictions and the limitations on the program, they are showing their unwillingness to bet very much on their position."

Which is it Darl?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Bad Link - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 10:09 AM EST
  • Not the first time - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 12:57 PM EST
Novell Offers to Indemnify
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:25 PM EST
Well... SCO can't really sue Novell, can they?

With all those contracts Novell has, clearly they feel that they can force SCO
to stuff it should SCO ever try to sue them. I mean, Novell still has SCO on a
leash, as it were... don't they? Granted, SCO is barking up a storm, but they
can't really do anything; they're screwed and it's only a matter of time
now... at least, in my oppinion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Offers to Indemnify
Authored by: brendthess on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 02:22 PM EST
After thinking about this, I believe that Novell is the <b><u>best
possible</u></b> company to offer indemnification.

Consider: Assuming that SCO internally believes that Novell's copyright claims
have some validity and/or chance for success in court, then Novell's
indemnification of its clients is basically a marketing tool.

And if SCO feels that Novell's claims have no merit, then Novell can get this
tested in court <b>through a lawsuit instigated by SCO</b>, and
probably much sooner than a full copyright lawsuit might be brought.

Could it be that Novell considers this "win-win"... We get good
advertising through the SCO fiasco, and if they sue, we get judgement on the
copyright issues without having to file the suit ourselves (we are just
defending our customers, and are the good guys!) Good publicity either way.

---
I am not even vaguely trained as a lawyer. Why are you listening to me?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 08:05 PM EST

McBride stated, "We believe Novell's indemnification announcement is
significant for a couple of reasons. By announcing the program they are
acknowledging the problems with Linux. Through the restrictions and the
limitations on the program, they are showing their unwillingness to bet very
much on their position."

Nuff said.

Wayne

Telnet hatter.twgs.org

[ Reply to This | # ]

In Summary
Authored by: swengr on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 10:32 PM EST
In Summary:

  • Novell is confident of their position, they don't seem to fear being sued by SCO. They might even welcome it, as they expect to recover any legal fees upon winning the case. Perhaps they are trying bait SCO into suing?
  • "IF" SCO wins... against a user, as opposed to the hypothetical IP thief? I'z quaking in my boots! Exactly what is the danger here? Unless and until SCO proves their IP is in Linux, there is no danger. And as I understand what I've read on Groklaw t he danger is not to the end-user.
  • Offering indemnification only if the code is not modified, does pose a threat to FOSS, but not a big one. People/companies that wish to modify the code, are in no worse position than now, they just have to assess the risk of being sued by SCO.

Gratis is nice, Libre is an inalienable right.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • In Summary - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 01:07 AM EST
Novell Offers to Indemnify
Authored by: zjimward on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 08:49 AM EST

Novell may be number one at this time, but after SCO is no longer a threat will
they continue to indemnify customers? It seems to me that if they do they will
lose market share to those companies that do not offering the indemnity. That is
if people realize the benefit to not being told what you can or can not do with
your Linux. I imagine some companies won't see it because they are so use to
proprietary software.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )