|
|
| OSRM Certifies Linux Kernel Free of Copyright Infringement |
 |
|
Monday, April 19 2004 @ 08:00 AM EDT
|
There are three announcements from OSRM making headlines today: -
OSRM certifies the Linux kernel is free of copyright infringement
- OSRM has opened a legal defense center. Individual programmers can get coverage.
- Bruce Perens has joined the Board of Directors of OSRM.
Media coverage here: "The New York-based company is launching the insurance-like offering after a six-month study that compared Linux with several versions of Unix. The evaluation uncovered no copyright problems with versions 2.4 or 2.6 of Linux's heart, or kernel, a finding that contradicts SCO's legal attack on IBM, AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler.
"'We have come out of the examination process with the strong belief that there are no meritorious copyright infringement claims in the kernel,' said John St. Clair, OSRM's executive director." Note that you do not have to give up your freedom to modify code.
And the legal protection includes a plan for individual coders: "The third package is for developers contributing code and bug fixes to the Linux kernel. For a $250 annual membership, developers have access to OSRM's IP experts and can receive $25,000 in legal backing if named in lawsuits because of their contributions to Linux.
"OSRM added that it has certified versions 2.4 and 2.6 of the Linux kernel as free of source code that could merit a copyright claim, and it offers its clients protection against litigation for those versions only."
Of course, SCO tries to put a FUD spin on all this: "'Everything we have looked at and found would run contrary to what they're finding,' spokesman Blake Stowell said. But SCO has no objection to OSRM's business: 'If people feel there's risk involved in running open source, I supposed the business they've created is a good one.'" As I've said before, in the interview now in Salon.com, when you buy insurance for your car, is it because you don't trust the workmanship or have doubts if Ford had the rights to the machinery that built it? Or is it because you realistically know there are bad people in the world who might steal your car or your radio or scratch your windshield by throwing a rock at your car? It's the same with software. There's nothing dangerous about GNU/Linux software. What you need protection from is people, bad people. Here's what Daniel Egger says on this subject: "'We decided to go straight to the heart of the matter and evaluate whether we could defend the Linux kernel. We determined that we can; and we will. Our clients will receive legal protection equal to, if not beyond, what they receive with proprietary software licenses,' said Daniel Egger, founder and chairman of OSRM. 'Along with many others, we agree that lawsuits like SCO’s are legally weak. But we recognize the business issue for Linux users is that even cases without merit cost significant time and money to defend. This is not about bad software; there is nothing inherently more risky about using Open Source. This is about providing a united defense against those trying to profit from a legal system that permits frivolous but expensive claims.'" Disclaimer: I am Director of Litigation Research at OSRM, so I don't normally report on OSRM. However, this news is major, and I'd be delinquent as a reporter, my other hat, if I didn't let you know the kernel has been certified free of copyright infringement. Here are the two press releases that were released this morning.
**********************************************************
Open Source Risk Management Certifies Linux Kernel Free of Copyright Infringement
OSRM to Indemnify Linux Kernel Users Against Potential Copyright Litigation
NEW YORK, April 19, 2004 — Open Source Risk Management (OSRM), the only
vendor-neutral provider of Open Source risk mitigation and coordinated
legal defense services, today certified the Linux kernel as free of
source code that could provide a basis for meritorious copyright
infringement claims. After a rigorous six-month process of examining the
individual software files in the Linux kernel and tracing their origins,
OSRM found no copyright infringement in Linux kernel versions 2.4 and
2.6. As a result, OSRM will offer clients legal protection against
copyright litigation for these versions of the Linux kernel.
“We decided to go straight to the heart of the matter and evaluate
whether we could defend the Linux kernel. We determined that we can; and
we will. Our clients will receive legal protection equal to, if not
beyond, what they receive with proprietary software licenses,” said
Daniel Egger, founder and chairman of OSRM. “Along with many others, we
agree that lawsuits like SCO’s are legally weak. But we recognize the
business issue for Linux users is that even cases without merit cost
significant time and money to defend. This is not about bad software;
there is nothing inherently more risky about using Open Source. This is
about providing a united defense against those trying to profit from a
legal system that permits frivolous but expensive claims.”
OSRM is offering the industry’s first and only vendor-neutral Open
Source indemnification, providing users of the Linux kernel legal
protection for around 3% of maximum desired coverage; which is on par
with other IP defense insurance rates. For example, $1,000,000 in
coverage would cost $30,000 per year. As a vendor-neutral entity, OSRM
is able to objectively assess legal risks, and offer protection that
still allows clients the freedoms of Open Source like modifying and
sharing code.
OSRM’s method for providing protection differs in important ways from
that of an insurance company. OSRM proactively works with clients to
assess and mitigate their risks, and then helps implement a set of best
practices for mitigating legal risks around their use of Open Source.
Clients also benefit from all the resources of OSRM’s Open Source Legal
Defense Center, including shared legal research, documentation and other
legal services. Unlike insurance companies, which provide funds for
hiring lawyers, OSRM itself hires and provides specialized lawyers for
its clients. These lawyers are chosen from OSRM’s carefully selected
panel of leading intellectual property defense litigators; all of whom
have extensive experience with the many highly technical Open Source
legal issues.
***********************************************************
Open Source Risk Management Launches Open Source Legal Defense Center Coordinated Legal Services for Linux Developers
and Potential SCO Defendants
Enable More Efficient, Expert Defense
NEW YORK, April 19, 2004 — Open Source Risk Management (OSRM), the only vendor-neutral provider of Open Source risk mitigation and coordinated legal defense services, today announced the creation of the Open Source Legal Defense Center. This center will offer Open Source developers and end users coordinated legal defense services, provided by leading experts in software intellectual property (IP) law from top legal firms across the United States. As most Open Source lawsuits address common technical and legal issues, OSRM can offer clients substantial cost efficiencies and stronger defense by providing shared technical information and specialized legal counsel. Based in Washington, D.C., the center is initially offering two targeted membership programs: one for potential corporate SCO defendants, and another for individual contributors to the Linux kernel.
Approximately 1,500 corporations in the U.S. received letters from SCO threatening litigation over their use of the Linux operating system, which SCO alleges infringes its intellectual property rights. OSRM will provide coordinated legal defense services for these potential SCO defendants, enabling them to build a more powerful defense at significant cost savings. This center will act as a central forum for confidentially gathering and sharing resources about issues common across the potential defendants; and will give clients access to highly specialized IP lawyers who are already fully knowledgeable about these very technical lawsuits. Members will be able to contribute resources anonymously and communicate in complete confidentially with other members facing similar issues. Corporate membership in the program is $100,000 annually for resources that would cost in the millions if developed independently.
"By threatening this group of large companies with litigation, SCO made their risk on Linux IP issues largely uninsurable. Ironically, what SCO also did is provide a compelling incentive for them to band together in united defense. We are providing them the infrastructure and forum to do so," said Daniel Egger, chairman and founder of Open Source Risk Management. "This program builds on the success we have had with our confidential OSRM Working Group meetings, which have brought together CIOs and General Counsels of Global 1000 Companies to discuss risk mitigation strategies and best practices for Open Source IP defense."
OSRM is also offering the full resources of the Open Source Legal Defense Center to individual contributors to the Linux kernel. Individual developers will have access to the same panel of specialized IP legal experts available to OSRM's large corporate clients, and can seek advice and services to help protect and defend their own intellectual property rights. As part of this $250 per year membership, developers will also receive $25,000 in legal backing from OSRM if they are named in future lawsuits involving their contributions to Linux.
"The Open Source community has already proved itself capable of very impressive 'distributed research,' collaborating on technical information that has proved critical in defending against SCO's allegations to date," said Daniel Egger. "OSRM intends to support this community response by providing further infrastructure to help Open Source users navigate the intricacies of the U.S. IP legal system."
For more information about this program, visit www.osriskmanagement.com.
About Open Source Risk Management
Supported by top Open Source leaders
and intellectual property (IP) legal experts, Open Source Risk
Management (OSRM) is the industry’s only vendor-neutral provider of Open
Source risk mitigation, indemnification, and coordinated legal defense
services. OSRM helps organizations assess potential legal risks around
their use of Open Source, and design risk mitigation solutions based on
a set of best practice protocols. Additionally, OSRM provides
indemnification for legal claims against Open Source, currently offering
legal backing for the Linux kernel versions 2.4 and 2.6. Through its
Open Source Legal Defense Center, OSRM also works in tandem with highly
specialized software IP lawyers to offer coordinated legal defense
services.
For more information, please visit http://www.osriskmanagement.com.
Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: jobsagoodun on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:02 AM EDT |
I hate to say it, but perhaps Caldera/SCOX have done us all a big favour by
launching these daft lawsuits. We've all been reminded that although OSS is
free, its of great value. The ironic result of McBride & Co's actions is
that we're much stronger, and better coordinated, and now better protected.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:03 AM EDT |
| Put them here... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:04 AM EDT |
| Bring it on SCO!! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- C'mon, MacBride! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:15 AM EDT
- "Greenhills Software CEO responds to Linux Security Controversy" - Authored by: Arthur Marsh on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:20 AM EDT
- SCOX still taking a pounding in wake of Baystar news - Authored by: Captain on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:26 AM EDT
- OT Greenhills Guy Explains His Theory - Authored by: bsm2003 on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:48 AM EDT
- New Ulrs and updates here!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 11:17 AM EDT
- Yuck! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 02:15 PM EDT
- New Ulrs and updates here!!! - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 03:52 PM EDT
- Liberal? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 09:25 PM EDT
- The curtain falls in Minnesota - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 04:31 PM EDT
- Best suggestions for Grokdoc - Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 02:21 AM EDT
- Microsoft settle Minnesota case - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 03:49 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:05 AM EDT |
| Another good hit on SCO. I wonder how they will take two hits in one row :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:12 AM EDT |
Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds...
...trademark Shullduggery is owned entirely by SCO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:18 AM EDT |
we all knew this was going to happen. if i was OSRM the first thing i would
advise my clients to do, is that if they are a redhat client, send duplictes if
the letters to red hat.
can redhat claim slander or somthing?
Oninoshiko[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:24 AM EDT |
Someone needs to start a fund to support the kernel developers who cannot afford
the membership.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: FriedBob on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:24 AM EDT |
So, other than SCO's spin attempts (and of course they would spin it) what does
this mean in terms of their cases? Is this something that could be used in
court, or is this an "immaterial" third party assertion that
ultimately has little to do with the cases at hand, beyond the trial by press
that is being waged outside the courtrooms?
---
"... [S]upreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without
fighting." -- Sun Tzu[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:25 AM EDT |
IANAL(or even a paralegal!), but this makes no sense to
me.
If they have certified it, then why the need for legal
protection? Innocent until proven guilty, right? And
certification should make you MORE innocent, if such a
thing were possible (it's not, so the whole thing is
pointless anyway, but..)
What's the point in making free software that poor
communities can use to educate their kids, if they then
have to go pay for legal insurance just to use it safely?
What kind of a contribution to humanity also consitutes a
threat?
We should nip this in the bud by ignoring it, and get on
with good, free, ethical code :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OSRM Certifies Linux Kernel Free of Copyright Infringement - Authored by: PJ on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:29 AM EDT
- I totally agree! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:30 AM EDT
- OSRM Certifies Linux Kernel Free of Copyright Infringement - Authored by: DFJA on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:32 AM EDT
- Lawsuit - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:39 AM EDT
- OSRM Certifies Linux Kernel Free of Copyright Infringement - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:39 AM EDT
- OSRM Certifies Linux Kernel Free of Copyright Infringement - Authored by: penhead on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:49 AM EDT
- Linux is Free of Infringements - Authored by: _Arthur on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 11:18 AM EDT
- Virtual Ambulance chasers? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 11:54 AM EDT
- OSRM Certifies Linux Kernel Free of Copyright Infringement - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 12:09 PM EDT
- OSRM Certifies Linux Kernel Free of Copyright Infringement - Authored by: Thomas An. on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 12:31 PM EDT
- IBM, DC, AZ, etc - Authored by: dmscvc123 on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 12:32 PM EDT
- You are right, but .... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 04:03 PM EDT
- OSRM Certifies Linux Kernel Free of Copyright Infringement - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 09:00 PM EDT
- Innocent until... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 04:49 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: freeio on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:32 AM EDT |
On the one hand, there will be those who feel the need to avail themselves of
these services, On the other hand, for many of us, paying a "mere"
$250/yr. is a very big deal.
This hurts, and let me tell you why: in the automotive realm insurance has
become required for one of several reasons: 1. many vehicles are bought on
credit, and the insurance is required to protect the interests of the lender;
2. many jurisdictions require the insurance as a form or protection against
liability for actions of the drive. There are those in my state who drive
without insurance, and they are arrested when they are caught.
The parallel here is that insurance protecting the user/developer of
free/open-source software is currently a novelty, but I can see a day when it is
just as required by law as the automotive insurance. It forms the logical basis
of a tax upon software development.
I see here not progress but pain. So sorry...
---
Tux et bona et fortuna est.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:36 AM EDT |
| SCO's shares are
taking a plunge at Wall Street. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Meanwhile... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 12:33 PM EDT
- Meanwhile... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 01:19 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:39 AM EDT |
This is a form of insurance against those who might make arguable but false
claims against developers. The certification is the underwriting part of the
insurance -- a determination that the risk of having a successful claim made is
extremely low. The insurance part is to cover litigation costs if a claim is
brought -- claims that later prove to be invalid, or would be proved invalid if
the defendant had resources to defend them, are brought all the time. This
initiative places Linux, in particular, in a better position from a legal
standpoint than many proprietary operating systems. The comments to the contrary
on this particular thread are simply attempts to spread FUD about Ms. Jones.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: greg_T_hill on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:39 AM EDT |
Any possibility of OSRM releasing a report on the
methodology used and what results were obtained? Maybe a
list of the probable contents of the briefcase of Herr
Blepp and why it doesn't infringe? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:44 AM EDT |
The stock took a steep dive on fairly heavy volume this morning.
What will RBC do? The suspense is killing me.
The question has been asked: What happens to the various cases if SCO goes
bankrupt? Will the copyright thing be cleared up? Will gpl be upheld? As far
as I can tell the various answers conflicted with each other. Is there a way to
force the cases to continue to their conclusion even if SCO is bankrupt and
can't pay the lawyers? Maybe SCO can get a public defender.
If SCO goes bankrupt and loses its various court cases, does the fact that it is
weakened and unable to defend itself properly dilute the value of those cases as
precedents?
ie. Assume that IBM gets its declaratory judgement saying that there is no
copyright infringement in Linux. Is that it or can somebody come along and say
"Your honor, this judgement should not be upheld because SCO could not pay
lawyers enough to properly defend them."?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:47 AM EDT |
Can someone explain what methodology was used for this certification? Who
conducted the analysis, and will the results be released? Simply put, OSRM
isn't _neutral_, so I have to accept this with a grain of salt for the sake of
fairness.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JOff on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:48 AM EDT |
So OSRM will have good reason to permanently monitor
development for possible infringements, just for commercial
needs. What happens if they think some patch is maybe
encumbered? The good side could be: the issue will be looked at
and resolved in an early stage. The bad side: what happens to,
say, a patch that would work O.K. anywhere in the world outside
the U.S.? Or a patch, that seems to be O.K. to some senior
penguin, but not good enough for OSRM? "Well, that patch might
as well be taken, but in that case we would have to stop our offer"?
Who would later on control the direction? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:49 AM EDT |
Either the trolls are out in force, or the first responders to this article
didn't understand what it means.
If you are a non-commercial or home user of Linux, you have nothing to worry
about anyway--no one will bother suing you since their costs would far exceed
the damages you could get.
The real damage SCO is doing, with their frivolous law suits, is they are
threatening businesses with "if you use Linux, we will sue you and waste
lots of your time and money, and maybe a jury will randomly decide in our favor
and then we will own you".
This announcement is a stake through the heart of SCO's unscrupulous effort.
It is suddenly *much cheaper and easier* for medium to large businesses, which
might become the target of a frivolous law suit by SCO, to defend themselves
from such attacks. And they no longer have to worry about going bankrupt to
defend it.
If there was anyone out there contemplating settling with SCO if they got
sued... I think that will never happen now.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kberrien on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:49 AM EDT |
>$250 annual membership
This insurance vendor is hitting both ends? The developer (volunteer) can
purchase 25k of legal support for $250, for FREELY making the product which the
insurer will insure at higher prices for the masses?
Bogus, developer coverage should be free if not symbolic ($5). If it were not
for the developer, there would be no product to insure. And any IP infringement
claim will fall on both parties, developer & user. Would not, to protect
the users, the insurer back the position of the developer QED. Sure, you could
have a developer who knowingly stole code.... but now the insurer must defend
that developer as well?
Wasn't this supposed to be a high-minded exercise? Is OSDRM a non-profit?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 11:01 AM EDT |
| a finding that contradicts SCO's legal attack on IBM, AutoZone and
DaimlerChrysler.
Are SCO's legal attacks on AutoZone and
DaimlerChrysler really related to the presence of Unix code in the Linux kernel?
I thought the AZ case was about SCO's compatibility library and DB's case about
not obeying SCO's audit request. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 11:02 AM EDT |
new article:
http://business.newsforge.com/business/04/04/19/058215.shtml?tid=85
suggests that discovery has been delayed in SCO vs IBM
until end of this week
I was under the impression that both SCO and IBM had
been given extensions on their deadlines to answer
the others claims/counter-claims ... but that SCO still
had to provide discovery material TODAY
Has SCO scored another delay here on providing the
specific code it claims in linux? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 11:11 AM EDT |
Maybe someone can explain to me how this doesn't help MS/SCO FUD by adding to
Linux's TCO with a likely unnecessary cost?
Sure, it's not $699 per CPU but it seems like they've scored a point against us
by increasing the cost of Linux, even if it's only marginal and only affects
developers. Instead of paying through the backside, we're paying through the
nose. Different orifice, same result.
Somehow, I don't think that many developers (or their bosses) who are
knowledgeable about Linux (or read GrokLaw) will get this since they know
there's no Unix in our Linux.
I guess time will tell.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 11:14 AM EDT |
I can pick up the tab for one deserving developer for one year at least. PJ, how
can I get info (privately) to OSRM? Perhaps the kernel development team could
nominate a recipient?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 11:17 AM EDT |
Oh well here it is...
Question that should be asked then answered; what power
does OSRM have that it "certifies" the Linux kernel at all ?. Does this "OSRM
certification" supersede the validity of of the kernels within major disto
developments or the OSDL ?.
Must have had to start this now because soon the
threat of SCO will be lost. The SCO case seems to have been the only reason for
this OSRM creation. When this SCO vs IBM case is over, what will this become ?.
Yes, OSRM legal defense center to, IMHO damage linux and opensource, and have
the use and development of "FOSS" (linux too) come down to a membership. To act
out of fear can be a bad thing !.
For any developer, or someone just offers
coding support buys into this; is in for problems IMHO. Maybe its time to think
about the future, and look at moving along away from linux, and find true
"opensource" elsewhere if OSRM is going to become the "power".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: icebarron on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 11:52 AM EDT |
Thanks PJ and OSRM, without your help this issue could have taken years of
FUD fighting to finally end. I also wish to thank Linus for his wonderful
contribution to freedom. Now there is still more left to do, coding must go on,
and THERE IS an alternative to the M$ monopoly. I have been in this industry
for many years, and very few times in those years have I felt such pride and
excitement about programming. For that alone I will be forever
grateful.
Dan
Let Freedom Ring
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 11:56 AM EDT |
whats the difference between what this company is planning to do and what th EFF
already does?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 12:12 PM EDT |
IANAL - but in view of the Baystar (and potential RBC) redemption issues, does
IBM have any right to request SCO to post a bond?
Also, methinks, that if Redhat (and other distributors or supporters of Linux
[such as IBM]) were to put $300,000 into a 'class action' type insurance policy
from OSRM, for the benefit of any of the 1000 companies that have received
letters from SCOG, wouldn't this equate to a $10 million counter 'war chest'?
If OSRM would underwrite the policy.
Also, has there ever been, in the US, a case of a class action defendant. It
occurs to me that it would be quite possible for a defendant to a class action
suit to countersue. So why not the other way around?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 12:22 PM EDT |
| Free Speech Risk Management Launches Free Speech Legal Defense
Center
Coordinated Legal Services for Free People
and
Potential Defendants Enable More Efficient, Expert Defense
NEW YORK,
April 19, 2004 — Free Speech Risk Management (FSRM), the only vendor-neutral
provider of Free Speech risk mitigation and coordinated legal defense services,
today announced the creation of the Free Speech Legal Defense Center. This
center will offer Free People everywhere, and those who might listen to them,
coordinated legal defense services, provided by leading experts in verbal
intellectual property (IP) law from top legal firms across the United States. As
most Free Speech lawsuits address common technical and legal issues, FSRM can
offer clients substantial cost efficiencies and stronger defense by providing
shared technical information and specialized legal counsel. Based in Washington,
D.C., the center is initially offering two targeted membership programs: one for
potential corporate defendants, and another for individual contributors to
freedom.
Approximately 1,500 corporations in the U.S. received letters from
evil people threatening litigation over their use of speech, which they allege
infringes their intellectual property rights. FSRM will provide coordinated
legal defense services for these potential defendants, enabling them to build a
more powerful defense at significant cost savings. This center will act as a
central forum for confidentially gathering and sharing resources about issues
common across the potential defendants; and will give clients access to highly
specialized verbal IP lawyers who are already fully knowledgeable about these
very technical lawsuits. Members will be able to contribute resources
anonymously and communicate in complete confidentiality with other members
facing similar issues. Corporate membership in the program is $100,000
annually for resources that would cost in the millions if developed
independently.
"By threatening this group of large companies with
litigation, evil people make their risk on verbal IP issues largely uninsurable.
Ironically, what they also did is provide a compelling incentive for them to
band together in united defense. We are providing them the infrastructure and
forum to do so," said Daniel Smegger, chairman and founder of Free Speech Risk
Management. "This program builds on the success we have had with our
confidential FSRM Working Group meetings, which have brought together CIOs and
General Counsels of Global 1000 Companies to discuss risk mitigation strategies
and best practices for Free Speech IP defense."
FSRM is also offering the
full resources of the Free Speech Legal Defense Center to individual
contributors to freedom. Individual people will have access to the same panel of
specialized IP legal experts available to FSRM's large corporate clients, and
can seek advice and services to help protect and defend their own free speech
rights. As part of this $250 per year membership, these people will also
receive $25,000 in legal backing from FSRM if they are named in future
lawsuits involving their contributions to freedom.
"The Free Speech
community has already proved itself capable of very impressive 'distributed
research,' collaborating on technical information that has proved critical in
defending against evil peoples allegations to date," said Daniel Smegger. "FSRM
intends to support this community response by providing further infrastructure
to help Free Speech advocates navigate the intricacies of the U.S. IP legal
system."
For more information about this program, visit www.fsriskmanagement.co
m.
About Free Speech Risk Management
Supported by top Free
Speech leaders and intellectual property (IP) legal experts, Free Speech Risk
Management (FSRM) is the industry’s only vendor-neutral provider of Free Speech
risk mitigation, indemnification, and coordinated legal defense services. FSRM
helps organizations assess potential legal risks around their use of Free
Speech, and design risk mitigation solutions based on a set of best practice
protocols. Additionally, FSRM provides indemnification for legal claims against
Free Speech, currently offering legal backing for the use of free speech.
Through its Free Speech Legal Defense Center, FSRM also works in tandem with
highly specialized verbal IP lawyers to offer coordinated legal defense
services.
For more information, please visit http://www.fsriskmanage
ment.com.
Freedom is a trademark of no one individual. It's a gift paid
for by the lives of those who fought and died to ensure that you would have
it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Unfortunately... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 12:59 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Tim Ransom on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 12:30 PM EDT |
buying an insurance policy, could one get their code 'certified' by OSRM? If
people could do that for a one off fee, that might be a useful thing - as long
as OSRM is willing to defend their findings in court. Some people are bitching
that this just vindicates FUD, and that OSRM marketing is FUD. I think
that the press release about Linux should put an end to that - what other
insurance company is not only working to mitigate risk, but announcing it? Yes,
they are in it to make money, yet I find this announcement about Linux, which
could actually work against their bottom line, as evidence of their moral
imperative (as if PJ's working there were not evidence enough). Finally, this is
not a 'tax'. You aren't obligated to buy it, and likely wouldn't unless you were
a corporation, in which case it makes perfect sense.
Thanks OSRM (and PJ)
for vindicating the kernel publicly - and best of luck with your
business.
---
Thanks again,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 12:38 PM EDT |
You work for OSRM now. It's good that you got that job, I hope it's more money
for you.
However, I think that the nature of OSRM's business could be a problem for the
integrity of Groklaw.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- PJ, don't you think you have a conflict of interests? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 12:52 PM EDT
- PJ, don't you think you have a conflict of interests? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 01:33 PM EDT
- PJ, don't you think you have a conflict of interests? - Authored by: phrostie on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 01:43 PM EDT
- Don't feed the trolls. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 01:52 PM EDT
- Better term: Confluence of Interest - Authored by: jayfar on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 02:30 PM EDT
- PJ, don't you think you have a conflict of interests? - Authored by: Weeble on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 02:50 PM EDT
- PJ, don't you think you have a conflict of interests? - Authored by: jelenko on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 03:36 PM EDT
- PJ, don't you think you have a conflict of interests? - Authored by: M X S on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 05:17 PM EDT
- You think PJ has a conflict of interest. - Authored by: Tim Ransom on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 07:51 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 01:10 PM EDT |
If my memory serves there was some controversy with Microsoft and some database
patent... MS licensed it to itself, but not to its customers, and when the
licensor notified customers MS said it was cool. Now, these customers could be
liable for triple damages.
So my question is, if one gets sued and for infringement and OSRM says the
litigator is full of it, but for some reason the litigator wins anyway, is one
acting in good faith and gets away with just normal damages?
Anyway, this indemnification business is great news, and is going to bite MS in
the ...behind... If one looks at software licenses carefully, one notes that
the vendor usually takes no responsibility whatsoever, and if there happens to
be some anyway, only up to the purchase price of the software. Which is
something you get implicitly with free-as-beer software... Anyway, when MS
starts peddling Longhorn and the Office that goes with it, smart customers will
DEMAND indemnification. Of course, MS can afford it, but still.
They don't happen to have a discount plan that only covers nuisance lawsuits but
not the damages? That might be good for someone...
Almost used *'s to suggest foul language ;-)
-tmp
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wvhillbilly on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 01:11 PM EDT |
Somebody just bought 40,000 shares of SCOX and it raised the price only about 10
cents a share.
---
What goes around comes around, and it grows as it goes.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Stumbles on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 01:19 PM EDT |
The only company I know of that has threatened its own customers
on a large scale with a similar lawsuit is TSG, even if they have
signed up for a "license".
Aside from those knuckleheads, I know of no other instance an end
user, individual or otherwise that was held responsible.
As such I frankly, have to put this on the same level of snake oiliness
as indemnification and the totally meaningless activities of TSG. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tlk nnr on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 01:21 PM EDT |
How in-depth was the review of the kernel?<br>
- The press release mentions "several versions of Unix". Any further
details?<br>
- What about drivers that are for multiple OS? At least one driver contains an
explicit comments that it was ported from the version that was initially written
for SCO. Did OSRM contact the developers and check that the SDKs do not forbid
such ports?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 01:51 PM EDT |
As a small business owner (LLC), I buy an insurance for 1,000,000$, it costs
~500$ annually. Why would I need to buy OSRM insurance? What's the difference?
Why can't I simply use my business insurance?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 02:31 PM EDT |
The chance of your house being leveled by a tornado is quite low. Even here
where i live in North Texas. You can look at a neighborhood after a tornado has
ripped through it and see two or three houses out of several dozen destroyed.
Tornados also often only effectively damage small areas. That is, they don't
measure damage in dozens of miles, but singular miles (this tornado's path was
.64 miles long, and did X dollars in damage). People buy tornado insurance on
the off change that their house might be hit. However, many people do not buy
tornado (severe weather / act of god) insurance because the risks are so low.
It is not required by law to have said insurance. It would be illogical to do
so.
I don't see this isurance as being much different from this form of insurance.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 02:43 PM EDT |
I hope that other FOSS developers besides myself see this for what it is.
I am truly disturbed that you are presenting this PJ.
I trusted you to be open and honest. This 'insurance' is NOT necessary.
In fact, it has a distinctly oily feel to it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 02:53 PM EDT |
Does anyone know what proportion of Linux is of US origin? Is this system of
extorting money from the poor by threatening them with huge legal bills a
singularly US phenomenon? Just try doing it in the UK. How far does the arm of
the US lawyer stretch? Who is going to get sued - the author, the 'copyright
holder' (assuming the author has assigned the copyright), the distributor, or
the end-user? Would Linus Torvalds be safer back in Finland (remember what they
did to that Russian guy)?
'They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve Neither liberty nor safety.'
---Benjamin Franklin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bsm2003 on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 03:17 PM EDT |
| Here is the news story [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ihawk on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 03:18 PM EDT |
Wired is r
eporting that Microsoft has settled the class action anti-trust suit in
Minnesota. There are no details in the report and it says that MS didn't provide
details of the settlement.
If it's anything like the non-settlement in
CA where MS pays off in software-voucher funny money, it's another win for MS.
Also, it really starts to look like MS is clearing the decks for something
major. We should really start paying attention and get ready for some sort of
legal/legislative attack on open source. I believe it's going to get ugly out. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Dan Lewis on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 03:29 PM EDT |
I don't see how PJ can have a conflict of interest when she very clearly
states her advocacy position. This isn't a traditional front-page news source
with presumptive objectivity and responsibility for only the bare
facts.
I think people wander into Groklaw and assume that because the
reporting is comprehensive and the love of the details is evident, they
must be reading the AP newswire. Then they hear about the site-runner's
foray into related commercial enterprises, and think Walter Cronkite is taking
money from Coca-Cola.
The commitment of Groklaw to document-based
reporting need not change whether or not PJ is using the results of that
research to conduct legal-risk assessments for FOSS issues, or even using those
assessments to set insurance rates.
PJ's position is that SCO, and
companies like SCO who wish to challenge Linux and the GPL in court, don't have
a legal leg to stand on. If anything, her advocacy position is at odds with her
insurance position. If she made SCO sound more dangerous than it actually is
(that would be misusing her advocacy, perhaps), more developers would be
inclined to buy insurance from her.
But so far, that hasn't been
happening, and Groklaw regulars wouldn't expect it to. Give PJ some credit, and
let her wear both hats, as part of her ongoing commitment to support the FOSS
community. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 03:51 PM EDT |
But after thinking things over for a while, that has mellowed somewhat to just
be "disappointment"
There is no need for this offering at all and the fact that OSRM is associated
with it has made me do a double-take on that organisation.
We've been saying for months that there is no basis to SCO's claims, and now
here we are offering insurance to cover your liability ?
I can just hear Darl/Laura now...
"Yep, even the people at Groklaw accept that there is infringing code. PJ
is a Director for the OSRM and they have just announced a new insurance scheme
to cover your legal expenses if you use illegally copied code in Linux. Those
guys are the experts in the field, and if they are offering insurance then it's
pretty clear that they feel there is a need for it."
If businesses want insurance, then they can go with HP/IBM/Novell/Red Hat to get
it, they don't need the OSRM.
I just don't see the logic to this announcement at all.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SaveDrury on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 04:53 PM EDT |
In case anything on Groklaw is copyrighted, I'll pay for your lawyers' fees.
You say that this site is under the creative commons? That doesn't change the
fact that you might incurr risk using open source information.
</end rant>
As much as i've appreicated PJs work on this - the whole concept that I need a
lawyer to cover my ass for absolutely no reason whatsoever at all IS why people
make up lawyer jokes and hate lawyers.
If there were justice in the world, plumbers, car repair folks, janitors, and
the like would charge lawyers double - just in case the lawyers has some problem
with their cars, plubming, and dirty bathrooms - just in case.
Its frightening that it is now being made a truism by the peopel that proport to
be in support of open source software - that it DOES cost a lot of money to run
and use open source software.
And who made this fallicy possible?
laywers - of course.
too many damn people don't take care of their damned selves, and now, we're a
nation hellbent on making the courts the single point solution to every one of
life's problems or inconveniences.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 04:59 PM EDT |
I too have a uncomfortable feeling with this insurance.
But, after I thought about it I realized my distaste was
with the current state of the US legal system that allows
slime to behave in such a manner that forces honest people
to have to resort to these measures. Reality: If you walk
in the greener pastures, you really do need to wear boots.
Sorry, cows, nothing personal.
Rick
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 05:09 PM EDT |
(1) There are an alarming number of trolls, astro-turfers and general
doom-and-gloomers coming out of the woodwork today.
What's up with that? Oh! I know. MS/SCO must feel really threatened by this
announcement, and they are trying to cloud it as much as they can. (that part
was easy!)
(2) What OSRM is now offering is *3rd party insurance* which is TOTALLY
DIFFERENT from the "indemnification" FUD we were seeing a few months
ago. The indemnification FUD was claiming, "the developer/distributor has
to indemnify the software or it's not safe to use" (which we all know is
baloney, read a Windows XP EULA to see exactly how much MS will indemnify their
software--slightly less than none). What OSRM is offering, is *optional* peace
of mind for those businesses that want it. They are doing this on their own,
without forcing any burdens on the developers and distributors of Linux. So
everybody wins--the developers keep developing Linux their own way and don't
worry about this at all (unless they are afraid of SCO suing them, in which case
$250/year is a very cheap price for some peace of mind about that--it's less
than your cable bill for example). But businesses that are scared to adopt
Linux (either because they bought into the "indemnification FUD", or
just because of all the uncertainty SCO has created with their nebulous claims
and threatening letters etc.) now have an easy solution--they can buy insurance
from OSRM at a very reasonable price and OSRM will protect them from future
lawsuits (which OSRM, after their thorough study of the source code, is firmly
convinced would be meritless ones like SCO's).
Bottom line: we live in a litigous society. Yeah, it sucks, but there are
scumbags out there who will sue you when they know you haven't done anything
wrong, if they have a ghost of a case and a chance in front of a jury. (SCO is
the best evidence of this). Businesses hate risk, and some businesses which
would *like* to adopt Linux, might be afraid to adopt it because of the chaos
SCO has caused. OSRM is offering peace of mind to those businesses because they
are firmly convinced the Linux kernel is free of IP issues, and because the big
attack from MS is coming and we need better-developed legal tools to defend the
software we love from the monopolistic corporation which will do anything in its
considerable power to hamstring that software.
This OSRM announcement is a Very Good Thing(tm) for Linux in general and for the
businesses that want to try it (but are scared of SCO/MS) in particular.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dmscvc123 on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 06:13 PM EDT |
I keep on checking PACER for a status report on IBM/SCO and nothing has happened
since the 16th. What happened today regarding discovery that SCO was supposed to
turn over?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 07:01 PM EDT |
Due to the surprising success/growth of Groklaw the founder had to spend more
and more time feeding the knowing, talented and curious who rely on this site to
follow the myriad aspects of the MS-SCO (emsco?) Saga.
The founder's dedication is such that she resented very much having to spend
some time doing her real job (investigating for lawyers on a case by case
basis). This keeps her away from her labor of love, which is Groklaw. She took
the OSRM job because it helped pay the bills and kept her in the MS-SCO arena
at the same time.
The furor arising from this connection is obviously unpleasant, but something
the founder decided to live with. The founder has no one to answer to but
herself here. While Groklaw is popular, it is not flooded with deal requests
link for pay options. Many schemes have been refused.
If a few thousand of you make a contribution by clicking on the left frame
(Click to Give or Pay Pal), Groklaw could hire the founder, full time. It would
be better if she did not work for OSRM and merely directed them as a board
member IMHO..[or resign altogether, but we are not talking about sainthood
here!]
Also consider the fact that OSRM makes it easier to defy MS-SCO for those who
have been intimidated by the prospect of having to hire lawyers to defend using
Linux. Indeed it is essential in the corporate world where many are paralyzed
or go the risk-free route. For them FUD exists, therefore it is truth. For
$250 they get up to $25K to get a lawyer to file an answer and a motion to stay
until SCO v. IBM is resolved. After that OSRM will be out of business.
So forgive the repetition of previous postings and anything said above. Give to
Groklaw and today's debate will be gone.
Still pale, so if you say you saw me on Spring Break, that is denied.
webster
---
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 07:09 PM EDT |
A Groklaw troll:
1. Post a message that begins, "I've always liked Groklaw, but..."
2. Trash PJ while simultaneously telling us how much you appreciate what she
has done.
3. Imply that Groklaw is not what it once was.
4. Talk in generalities, not specifics, except in the complaining area that they
are trolling about.
5. When called a "troll" say, "Look, not everyone who complains
is a troll.
Some of us want to speak our mind, but I guess you have to be a cheerleader
around here."
6. Stay polite in words, but ugly in meaning.
7. Post anonymously (usually) while doing all of the above.
How to identify a NON-troll on Groklaw:
1. Have specific complaints and specific suggestions.
2. Have a track record.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 07:21 PM EDT |
and, Surprise, it isn't from Enderle:^)
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1569972,00.asp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 07:53 PM EDT |
I feel a little uneasy about this insurance. It seems there is a market for
this product.
What worries me is that highlighting this brings this to the forefront of
manager's minds. It is like saying there is a real risk out there from the
likes of SCO (we know that). But also in the back of their minds, it begs the
question just how much risk is there?
Also, if they themselves have certified Linux as infringement free, just what
are they selling?
Altogether it presents a mixed message IMHO.
[I would add that the issue regarding PJ is pretty much a non-starter in my
mind. She has to eat and who else is better placed to present the facts! There
is little conflict of interest and anyway she seems intent of declaring that
interest like a professional would be expected to do.][ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dmscvc123 on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 07:54 PM EDT |
I just did a search on the NY State Insurance Department and I didn't find
either "OSRM" or "Open Source Risk Management," so it sounds
like OSRM is an unlicensed insurer and could find itself in legal hot water
themselves. OSRM is clearly marketing their products as insurance, so PJ or
whomever from the company I hope has already verified that they don't need an
insurance license and if not, that they'll remedy that quickly as I believe
they'd need an insurance license in every state where they operate.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 08:20 PM EDT |
Insurance, in part, is directed towards compensating for the craftsmanship or
engineering deficiencies of a vehicle. The same goes for extended warranties.
Vehicles have purposely included design limitations and the manufacturing
process has limitations as well. Cost is the factor that is generally
optimized, and as we know courtesy of Ford Motor's pinto fiasco, this model
takes into account estimated costs of litigation. Car manufacturers could
enhance reliability, durability, safety, and so forth, raising the purchase
price, but this doesn't happen because buying inferior cars along with more
expensive insurance and warranties is still cheaper. Planned obsolesence plays
a part as well.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 08:31 PM EDT |
Do they protect against patent infringement cases? I would bet no. There is
very little other than having legal costs insured that can be done to protect
against a patent case. End user threats don't come up all that often, but when
they do, it can be ugly; Lemelson's 1 billion worth of [winning] legal
shenanigans were sort of end user type of operation.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 08:41 PM EDT |
| According to
Newsforge
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 08:57 PM EDT |
If the company you work for was planning to use Linux, but got cold feet because
of the SCO claims, send them to OSRM.
Better yet, have your lawyers read the APA, and then they will know for
themselves that SCO does not have a leg to stand on. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 09:38 PM EDT |
Now that the period for discovery has ended, is there going to be a hearing
sometime to decide how well each side complied?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 09:41 PM EDT |
FYI ...!
This is just one such website that you can get a fast & cheap LLC.
http://www.legalzoom.com/pricing/llc_pricing.html
Just one website that offers inromation on LLC.
On the page scroll down and read :
"What is a Limited Liability Company?"
AND:
"Do You Need an Attorney?"
HERE: http://www.llcweb.com/[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 09:52 PM EDT |
> She just reported facts which
are relevant to the issue at hand and properly included a disclaimer. She did
everything by the book and completely above board.
Insurance offering was totally irrelevant to the title of the post. It was a
hidden product placement. This happens all the time in movies, for examples. She
attracted my attention with this title and the beginning of the post, then
suddenly put an ad with insurance offering.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:27 PM EDT |
Ignore me, I'm just doing my angry-old-white-guy thing.
I was just over at Slashdot defending PJ's honor. Maybe it's my imagination but
the folks who can't spell seem to predominate on one side of the issue. Bah,
humbug.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: HamonEggs on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:43 PM EDT |
It is rather disturbing that every dissenting post here is
labelled as a troll. So at risk of being labelled as
such, I have a few question that I can't see answered
anywhere else.
Let us say I contribute to the linux kernel a device
driver that I implemented based on someone else's
clean-room reverse-engineered specification for a popular
piece of hardware. I never make another contribution to
the linux kernel. There is a good chance that my code
will exist in the kernel for many years.
I decide to purchase some insurance from OSRM at the $250/
year rate. After my years worth of protection runs out,
would I need to pay OSRM another $250 to still be insured?
How many years do I continue this? Does this liablity
burden pass to my heirs? In other words, where does the
risk end? Is there a statute of limitations on copyright
infringement? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 11:42 PM EDT |
I want to defend OSRM and PJ
What OSRM is doing is good for Linux and oss. A lot of corportions are scared to
use Linux because they are afraid of lawsuits. OSRM is giving them protection
against that, and so a lot more corporations are going to adopt Linux.
So what if PJ works for OSRM. This is news that is interesting to Groklaw
readers. Lots of open source developers like Linus himself are paid to write oss
code. PJ is being paid to do legal research that defends Linux against lawsuits.
I think that is good. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RevSmiley on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 11:49 PM EDT |
OSRM is allowing P.J. to work on Groklaw while working for them. How is
mentioning OSRM a bad thing? So how is mentioning the people who employ P.J a
bad thing? Those 2 things ≠ a bad thing.
As they as thay say "big
deal". As the say BFD.
---
Never accredit to unalloyed evil what
simple greed compounded with stupidity can explain. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 11:56 PM EDT |
H@tterman.
No, I don't want an account, and have posted as a "Troll" before.
This whole OSRM thing comes down to a choice. If you feel you need this OSRM,
buy it. If not, join the OSDL with a $10 million dollar legal fund of its own,
and with 38 worldwide companies / corporations as members, that collective funds
could be in the billions. Its a matter of not running under a single roof out of
blind fear to get protection. The collective community is a great force I
believe in, if all are together, say only about 1 million out of all, the $250
would be very fast if needed $250 million. The idea here is the protection for
an opensource community, should be a community fund under community control. I
support opensource and believe this opensource legal question can be community
answered.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grouch on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 12:48 AM EDT |
PJ,
Thanks for reporting this straight up, even though I'm sure you were well aware
ahead of time that it would bring out hordes of trolls. I admire your fortitude
in the face of all the squalling about imagined conflict of interest and naive
cries that FOSS needs no such certification or insurance service.
Of course there will be those who selectively ignore your prominent disclaimer
in order to promote their own hidden agenda. I'm glad you do not let them deter
you from providing the facts to your target audience, who are very interested in
those facts.
My initial reaction to OSRM was distrust and distaste. It seemed like a
back-door way to feed MS and SCO more TCO FUD material. (argh! it's a paragraph
of acronymns). However, it is clear that just having the code open for anyone's
inspection is not a shield against shakedown schemes. Just being open is no
protection against intimidation by threats of litigation. OSRM's announcement is
another discouraging factor against those who use threats of bankrupting
litigation to interfere with developers. Corporations can use such a service as
a way to pool resources against possible threats. OSRM's offerings fit nicely
within the GPL, too.
Since you're already stirring things up, care to take a stick and whack at a
hornet's nest a few times? At least their stings are real; not like the
imaginary inventions the trolls use as an excuse to launch their real, public
attacks on you. I hope you note that you have more supporters in the comments
than detractors.
---
Can you trust your computer?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 01:26 AM EDT |
SCO is finished .... Time to move on. IBM and Novell will finish them in short
order with a message to the next player in law suite rulette. There will be
other battles to come. The only worry I have is McBride is stupid. Just looking
at the things he says to the press shows you that. He is a fool and a fool and
his (companies) money are soon parted. What if the next IP mongral is a lot
smarter? (hint MicroSoft) Time to get ready to fight for I right to
"computer without big brother (MicroSoft)".
NO......... McBride I'm not copying a song.... Don't sue me.. please...
No joke though. This is not over ny a long shot. Linus is right the patton
problem is comming up next .....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: suppafly on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 01:31 AM EDT |
| quick, IBM sign up. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 01:45 AM EDT |
From new eweek article:
According to SCO's director of corporate communications, Blake Stowell,
"BayStar hasn't responded to our requests for exactly how SCO breached four
sections of the companies' contracts."
"They've not been forthcoming to SCO or any member of the media," he
said.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ravenII on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 01:49 AM EDT |
Although a bunch of people seems displeased about this announcement, I hope they
will understand. I buy car insurance but for last few years I have gone without
a single accident, no claims. But I still pay my insurance. (it is hard to drive
without one, at least you got to protect people that you might hurt, third
party.) I think same goes for companies with investments in/on Linux. It is
always better when people have a choice. Be it indemnification, insurance or
plain bravado like me. It is still a choice that people have. Instead
criticizing the issue let your choice stand. Instead of trying to paint PJ with
different colors, show your true colors. If you are willing to go without any
protection, show that too. I am sure SCOundrels must be reading this site as
well. By saying that you are running Linux without any protection, you can show
how brave you are. I run a few linux servers and heavily developing in linux. So
let PJ be. Let her do what she thinks is right. After all if not for her you
would not have a place to bring you rants to! She has invited you to her place,
treated you fair. So be fair.
Have a good day.
---
"Snowflakes are one of nature's most fragile things,
but just look what they can do when they stick together."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 02:42 AM EDT |
. . .Freedom of choice. To participate in the insurance or not to participate.
That choice is up to the individual and the individual alone.
krp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 03:12 AM EDT |
What's the difference between SCO offering you legal protection at $X and OSRM
offering you legal protection for $Y?
SCO says all Linux *business users* are at risk; OSRM say that Linux
*developers* are at risk. Correct me if I am wrong, but OSRM is *not* saying
that Linux end-users are at risk, just developers.
OSRM is offering professional insurance, not personal insurance. A doctor gets
professional insurance because of what the doctor does. The doctor's patients
don't need the same kind of insurance (but they can arrange any type of personal
medical insurance they like, if they see the need). The patient doesn't provide
the medical service, he or she only uses it. Similar to the library book
containing plagiarized content, the user of the goods/service can not be held
accountable for the actions of the goods/service provider.
I can see how, in the same way, Linux developers need insurance for the act of
contributing code to the codebase. If they accidentally contribute tainted code
then they risk being sued by the rightful owner of the code. OSRM protects
them, to some extent, against that risk. However, Linux end users remain free
of risk regardless of what each Linux developer does with the codebase. Linux
users who never contribute code to Linux will never need indemnification or
insurance.
Now if OSRM's offerings are anything other than what I've described here then I
think there are issues that need to be addressed. Hopefully I'm on the right
track.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 03:55 AM EDT |
Having the CVS logs is often not sufficient because they can be manipulated.
What is needed is a way to sign a file with a date.
I believe that this is a service that OSRM and any other large OSS institutions
(FSF, redhat, ...) could provide.
The service could work like this:
(1) A developper want to release or sign his code A.
(2) There is no need to sign the full source so he creates a checksum B of A
using md5sum, pgp, ...
(3) He sends B to the serveur to have it signed with a private daily/weekly key.
The result is C.
(4) At the end of the day/week, the private key is destroyed and a public key is
published to check the validity of a signed documents such as C.
The issue here is to insure that nobody gets access to the private key when its
daily/weekly period is over. A trusted 3rd party such as Verisign is probably
required to insure that the private key remains secret.
The main problem here is to pay the trusted company (they won't do it for free)
so an alternative solution for the OSS organism would be to collect all
daily/weekly checksums, pack them in one file and sign this unique file. Then
the cost would be minimal: one signature per day/week.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 05:36 AM EDT |
Real classy, PJ. Consider any credibility that you had gone for ever. SCO is
going to gag you quicker than you can say "professional libel".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 05:37 AM EDT |
Suppose I don't buy this insurance. But Son of SCO sues me.
Will Groklaw support me? Will the matter see the light of day?
For example, I know that I can make Groklaw posts from one internet session,
which I can see from any later session on that machine. But I am pretty certain
that I have been labelled a troll for being critical of Groklaw and PJ in the
past, although I am very much concerned to advance Linux and FOSS in general. If
I go to another location, I can't see my original posts. [I am now at another
location].
So dealing with me as though I were a troll has resulted in Groklaw cutting me
out of participation in the community. I also cuts me out from posting any
threat I may receive.
What if PJ also decides that there is no money for the OSRM issue in doing
anything about my case? Or that Groklaw resources are best devoted to minimizing
the losses to OSRM? Obviously as an accused troll, I can hang as far as Groklaw
is concerned. And OSRM's best interests will actually be well served to have me
sued as a non-customer.
Groklaw has carved out a constituency in the FOSS world, which has some faults,
but these were redeemable. It may be inadvertent, but PJ has now annexed this
territory for the commercial benefit of ONE company, the one she works for. I
can only echo the concerns of other some other posters, and fully expect to be
called a troll. But being called a troll in this instance will say more about
the caller than it does about me.
Groklaw should now become a sub site of OSRM and not take the ibiblio hosting
any longer. This having happened, Groklaw could better speak for the community
as an acknowledged and respected part of OSRM, rather than from a compromised
position of independence or of speaking on behalf of the community as a whole.
Oh yes, I am still an Anonymous. Now this OSRM plug has happened, I am not going
to become a named contributor either. Judge what I have to say, on the basis of
the point I make, not on whether I am a registered user.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 06:14 AM EDT |
Any company has to get its message accross to succeed.
What will OSRM's message be?
Will it be..
"...You need our product! You are at risk with out it! Linux is risky.
For a low premium you can alleviate those risks!..."
or will it be..
"...Although we believe there is absolutely no risk to using linux, we can
however insure those (absent) risks, so you really have little excuse to use
Linux..."
The Former is active marketing and does put doubts in people's minds about the
risks of switching to GNU/Linux. The Latter is much more passive and genuinely
tries to promote linux with a get out of jail card for those who really feel
they need it.
Business is Business and Active Marketing Works. Passive Marketing rarely works
and ONLY when where there is ZERO competition. What happens if there is another
OSRM startup?
It appears that PJ's integrity or impartiality is being questioned, from reading
a few posts here. I would like to say that I am more comfortable with all this
knowing that PJ *IS* involved.
However, and this must be said, not all dissenting views are trolls. We are a
community after all. Chill out a bit. I understand that everyone is paranoid
about trolls especially 'Anonymous' ones. If you really think a post is a
Troll, then ignore it! The next thing is trolls accusing non-trolls of being
double agent trolls. Dont let this forum slip into that. Oh, and I suspect PJ
is strong enough to take a little gentle criticism. She has blasted all SCO's
attempts so far :-)
PS...Whatever happened to the legal defense fund that was started? Would it not
have been better to expand this into a 'NATO for Linux' with each organization
paying into a kitty in return for legal protection funds? Is that not how true
insurance works, people 'pooling' their risks? Is that not a better way to
proceed? Is pledgeing money to an industry defense fund, not better vendor only
imdemnification?
Paul, UK.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Turin on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 07:08 AM EDT |
I used to work in insurance so I have an idea about how coverage works, how the
legal process goes for a policyholder, and how a claim is evaluated, etc. I did
BI and PD work - never did E&O (Errors and Omissions) though i've socially
known lawyers and claim reps who did. It would seem that this coverage
resembles blanket E&O more than anything else in typical insurance
portfolios.
I have a few questions that the OSRM web site didn't answer.
What's the reserve?
Why do you use the word indemnification in a public offering? If you read
carefully insurance policies, they almost NEVER indemnify. They (insurers) are
generally bound by law (varies state to state) to give you a good faith defense
but indemnification is riskier than that. Risk-averse is the correct attitude
for an insurer.
Do you have an actuary who figured out whether you can make money based upon
premiums and freqency of litigation?
Do you have much confidence in that actuary? (considering to some degree they're
pulling the number out of their butt)
If there are no claims (let's assume SCO goes down), how do you expect to sell
policies and build up a reserve?
Sorry for being so critical but none of these key questions were addressed.
Thank you.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Questions !!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 10:04 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 07:09 AM EDT |
I must say when I read about the announcement on other sites (read: on
LinuxToday and the articles it points out to :) ), the way it was rendered
looked like OSRM was proposing its insurance for end-users, in which case it
made no sense (only distributors and developers can ever be accused of copyright
infringement and other "IP thefts") and looked a bit too much like the
SCO licensing scheme. The result was that those articles were followed by long
diatribes against PJ and how she is just wanting to monetize the SCO case for
her own profit, how Groklaw was another FUD agent, useless when it comes to real
info, etc... And I must admit that I was uneasy about all this, and wondered why
OSRM didn't provide a legal protection fund for developers instead, what would
really be useful.
But now that I have access to the correct info, I see that all those articles
were just FUD against PJ and OSRM, and that what OSRM proposes is exactly what
makes sense! So I'm quite relieved I must say! :)
Now there's still the complaint that providing such an insurance may give a
wrong signal: "using Open Source is legally dangerous". Unfortunately,
this kind of FUD has already been propagated everywhere before even OSRM was
known, so I doubt it will change anything in that respect. Strange: in other
technological domains, insurance never brings that kind of complaints (No
company we're dealing with would ever say: "you're insured, so it means
there's some kind of risk involving your product, so we don't buy". This
kind of twisted logic would get the person who said that immediately scolded by
his/her colleagues!). What is different in the IT domain that people suddenly
stop thinking rationally and bring such nonsense arguments on the table?
At the same time, I must say that it is too bad that we should need what OSRM
proposes. When just going to trial is a liability for your company, it means the
Justice system is seriously broken. In Europe, I doubt such an insurance will be
necessary. AFAIK (but IANAL, although my sister is studying to become one, so I
have some information close to me ;))) ), here in Europe it is taken for granted
that the loser has to pay for all the costs. If the loser's company is bankrupt,
the state will take on the personal belongings of the people responsible in that
company. If they flee, they will go after them. But the winner never comes into
the equation. The only thing the winner ever has to pay are the fees for his
lawyers (and not always), and it seems European lawyers are much more reasonable
than American ones when it comes to wages :)) . Again, all of this is AFAIK and
may not hold for businesses.
All in all, what I meant to say is:
- FUD is not a weapon that only companies like Microflop and SCO like to use. It
seems some people in the Open Source community find it OK to use it against
other members of the same community (I shouldn't be surprised I suppose, any big
enough group of people will have its fringe elements, its hooligans. It doesn't
say anything about the community as a whole - I hope -).
- OSRM is actually making a reasonable proposal. That they make money out of it
is *not* a problem, or all insurers should be outlawed :) .
- PJ is an upright person, and Groklaw is a useful site, having such a
tremendous effect that even people that are part of the Open Source community
have difficulty understanding it, and respond defensively, and unfortunately
sometimes aggressively.
So keep up the good work! I'm a faithful reader of Groklaw, and I'll stay that
way, whatever people may say against it :) .
Christophe Grandsire.
(who would like not to post anonymously, but somehow failed to create an account
:(( . I did fill the form and pushed the "register" button - and the
e-mail address was correct - but I never received my password :((( )[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 07:18 AM EDT |
can i reset it or something?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Darkside on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 07:27 AM EDT |
Today, in a major development in the SCO case, a company did something. Blake
Stowell, SCO spokesman responded by saying something to the press.
The end
PJ[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Darkside on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 07:41 AM EDT |
I agree that not every anonymous dissenter is a troll, but it does appear that
there are been many that obviously are. Some of them have been abusive. I
suspect many of these are being made by the same person.
I also understand that PJ is reluctant to remove the facility for anonymous
posting because she feels that potentially valuable sources of inside
information may not otherwise feel able to post.
My suggestion is that where an anonymous post is made, it should be taged with
the MD5SUM, or some other hash of the source IP. This would enable readers to
connect different posts made by the same person, without in any way compromising
that person's anonymity.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Does not help - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 09:12 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Darkside on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 07:54 AM EDT |
PJ, it would be better if you put your disclaimer in bold and at the start of
any article about OSRM, rather than burying it in the body. Not everyone who
reads it will be a regular groklaw regular who knows the score anyway, nor will
everyone read the article carefully.
This will not satisfy the trolls, but then, nothing will.
My request is that you write an article describing what your job at OSRM
entails. This would, of course, send the trolls apoplectic, but I'm genuinely
interested, and I'm sure there are other serious Groklawyers who would be
interested too.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Powerin on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 08:00 AM EDT |
Apologies if this is a stupid question....but how can OSRM definitely certify
Linux code against Unix code when at least parts of some Unices are still closed
source...or is all the SysV code available for scrutiny and comparison
somewhere?
Don't get me wrong.....I don't believe for a second that Linux contains any SCO
IP....just wondering how OSRM was able to do a code comparison.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 08:02 AM EDT |
I've been sitting back for a day or two looking at this article and the
comments about P.J.'s "advertisement" / "product placement" / "conflict of
interest" / whatever. I think that these comments, while perhaps being honest
and valid in the eyes of the commenters, are missing the big
picture.
PJ is a reporter, and has been reporting on the SCO debacle
since it started. A large part of the FUD surrounding this whole scenario has
been the issue of indemnification, and the legal "risk" of using Open Source
software. P.J. reported on the indemnification FUD, on IBM's declining to issue
indemnification, on HP's announcements, on SCO's blatherings on the same. OSRM's
offer of insurance is one more piece of this same picture, no more, no less. As
P.J. notes in her disclaimer, she would be remiss if she did not report
it along with all the rest.
As for the issue of P.J. working for the
company on whom she is reporting, this is no more an issue than Peter Jennings
and ABC reporting on happenings in the Disney Corporation (who happens to own
the ABC network). Mr. Jennings invariably issues a disclaimer at the end of such
reports disclosing that ABC is owned by Disney. P.J. did the same.
Unless I
missed it, nowhere in the article does P.J. solicit people to buy OSRM's
offerings; she simply reported them, as any industry reporter might have done,
and as she herself did with other companies' offerings (Red Hat's defense fund
and HP's indemnification offer come to mind).
Should she have reported
this? I say "yes". I come to Groklaw to find out what's happening in this legal
challenge to Linux. The issues she reports in her article are completely
relevant and informative. I am now more informed than if she hadn't. Granted,
she walks a fine line between her two responsibilities, but she walks it with
distinction.
P.J., keep up the good work, and always remember:
"Illegitimi Non Carborundum".
---
"When I say something, I put my
name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: archonix on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 08:16 AM EDT |
Forgive me, I'm almost certain something like this has been said already on this
very page, but I got bored about 3 quarters of the wya down and felt I had to
say this in the clear, where everyone would see it.
This is how the world works. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Everything has a price of some kind attached to it, be it time, money or effort.
There is nothing free in that sense.
The *other* kind of freedom requires eternal vigilance, which means that even
Free is not free of cost.
This insurance is offered as *one way* of defending yourself against
"tyranny". It isn't mandatory, it isn't suited to everyones needs,
but it exists as an option.
And again, to keep yourself Free, you have to carefully watch for any changes in
the insurance policy that might start to remove your freedoms, because the OSRM
can't get a free lunch either, and *if* they try, they will quickly realise the
cost.
Done now... :)
---
The only money being made here is by Sue, Grabbit and Rune.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 08:50 AM EDT |
You've trolled me into creating an account*.
Bio: I am a GNU/Linux user
and developer. I use SuSE Linux for preference on my home machines. I develop
for various flavours of Linux as well as Symbian, PalmOS, BTRON, BREW, and, yes,
WinCE/95/NT in my working life. Whatever gets the job done.
Well, up until
today, I viewed the SCO case is being a pure win-lose case. Darl and SCO should
lose, everyone else should win. Good should triumph over evil. And there was
much rejoicing, etc.
I'd like to add an addendum to that. Your insistent
astroturfing has aggravated me to the point where I hope and trust that OSRM
will go belly up the day after SCO does. How can you possibly argue that there
are no problems with IP in Linux while at the same time shilling
insurance against just that?
Is there a problem, or isn't there? If not,
what are OSRM selling? How much oil can you get out of a regular sized
snake anyway?
Oh, I know, I know, you're insuring against Bad People. But
here's the thing. You are using SCO as an excuse to milk regular developers.
And that's all it is. An excuse. When SCO isn't around to create the
FUD that OSRM relies on, what then? You just call it a day and shut up
shop?
I don't think so. OSRM will fight just as hard to preserve its
business as SCO is doing. And you'll be a party to that. I doubt that you'll
have many devotees left by then though.
Here's a parting thought for you.
I'm sure you're adamant that what you are doing is right and moral. Well, do
you think Darl feels any different?
* Note to brittle Lunix users - the name
is ironic. A real** M$ Shill wouldn't identify himself as
one.
** Unless... that's just what a real shill would say and
do! Well, I guess you're too clever for little old me. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 09:22 AM EDT |
If you put your code into the GPL, then your work is covered by the defense
fund. Put the money into the defense fund, and it stays there year after year
earning interest. No skimming by venture capitalist.
The full value of the fund is available to defend GPL developers, so that the
fund has more worth beyond the liability limits established by OSRM insurance
policy.
Corporate backers and individuals would be free to contribute.
GPL developers could add a small suggested donation according to their income
level -- $10 to $50 per year, but this would be totally optional.
This is the way to go and remain inclusive of people with less money who are
contributing to the GPL'd code base. It would also encourage people to place
their software under the GPL as opposed to other more restrictive licenses.
-a
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tim Ransom on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 12:20 PM EDT |
First of all, PJ's involvement in OSRM is old news, so where are all these
'Shocked! Shocked I tell you!' people have been for the last several months is
perplexing. Remember the UNIX timeline project (funded by OSRM)?
I find it
telling that these trolls in waiting chose to wait until something potentially
damaging from OSRM's anti FUD research came to light (the kernel is
clean!) to start whining about 'conflict of interest' and floating paranoid
theories.
Notice how the announcement about the kernel has been obscured
completely by trolls casting aspersions at PJ and asking stupid questions easily
answered by clicking a few links?
My favorites are the self appointed
arbiters of ethics, who invariably avoid acquainting themselves with the facts
before declaring their 'disgust' with things they don't understand.
Less
interesting are the attention seekers who simply generalize and cast aspersions,
then whine about how their 'dissenting opinion' (read: insults, flagrantly
provocative and factually deficient twaddle) is received (I'm not
trolling! Really!).
As far as I'm concerned, this is still PJ's personal
blog. We are all simply guests here. She is not obliged to cater to anyone
else's whims, nor should she. She could decide to sell OSRM insurance directly
from this site and it would not bother me in the least. That a bunch of armchair
critics and professional trolls deem it necessary to try and tell her how to run
her blog or (even more inane) how to make a living is just obnoxious.
How
many of you write software for the enemy OS? Sell the enemy OS? Use the enemy
OS? Is your job in perfect tune with your convictions? Are you perpetuating the
MS monopoly because you need to pay the bills? I can't pretend I don't.
I
have yet to see a compelling argument as to why what OSRM is doing is bad.
Instead, I find the trollery and half cocked criticism a distressing reminder of
how petty, vindictive and ignorant we can all be at times.
---
Thanks
again,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 01:02 PM EDT |
Lawsuits are something that a company or corporation can file over almost
anything in a court, and have a case on its way. Too many people in the
opensource community looking for leaders outside the community fail to see the
situation they create.
They fail to realize that a community is not an
individual-by-individual handling of matters, having people in the opensource
community go into groups, groups of those with and those without protection, it
will destroy the community.
Fear remains the drive for protection, while SCO
soon will pass into histroy, other fear is comming to take SCO's place. The only
answer it would seem to some, is to have a leader to protect them and speak.
This weakness in the opensource community will be sure to have many run for
cover in the leader's house over the smallest problem. Those looking to damage
opensource will see a target for sure, all the bad one from the west has to do
is jump out and say BOO ! I WILL SUE YOU, and like the Wizard Of OZ all those
little people go running to hide under the leader, that will be the good one
from the east, and comes and gos as a glass-like ball when needed.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sth on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 05:06 PM EDT |
Hi Pamela,
please take a look at the following news at Heise.de,
probably the
most important german IT-news service:
SCO vs.
Linux: Aktion der
Aktionäre erwartet
[...]
Das Geschäftsmodell, mit so
genannten "IP-Lizenzen"
(Intellectual Property) aus der von SCO
produzierten
Rechtsunsicherheit um möglicherweise in Linux
übernommenen
Quellcode aus Unix-Beständen Einnahmen zu erzielen, hat
sich als
Flop herausgestellt. Mit der Firma Open Source Risk Management
(OSRM)
möchte sich zudem eine zweite Firma am
Markt etablieren und
ein Geschäft mit verunsicherten
Linux-Anwendern machen. Seit gestern bietet
OSRM nun ebenfalls ein
Antidot
an,
beschränkt sich dabei allerdings ausdrücklich auf den
amerikanischen
Markt. Zusammen mit ihrem Angebot hat OSRM eine
außerordentlich vage
Pressemeldung veröffentlicht,
derzufolge "zertifizier
t"
wird, dass die Linux-Kernel 2.4 und 2.6 keine
Copyright-Verletzungen
enthalten. Eine Auskunft darüber, welche
Unix-Derivate zum
Vergleich bei der Zertifizierung herangezogen wurden, wird von
OSRM
bislang aus juristischen Gründen verweigert.
The business
model of gaining revenue with so called IP-licenses
(intellectual property) from
the SCO created legal doubt about
possible incorporation of Unix source code
into Linux has turned out
to be a flop. With the Open Source Risk Management
(OSRM) now a
second company tries to enter this market, making business with
unsettled
[uncertain made?]
Linux users. OSRM is now also offering an antidote
[“Antidot-Lizenz” was used
as a synonym for
“SCO's IP-License for Linux” (STh)], but it
is especially restricted to the US
market. Together with their offer,
OSRM has also published an extraordinary
vague press release
expressing it is certified that Linux kernel 2.4 and 2.6 do
not
contain copyright infringements. Any information about which
Unix
derivatives have been used for comparison in case of this
certification are
up to now denied by OSRM for legal reasons.
You see, how much the
OSRM business can be (mis)interpreted as
(mis)using the FUD, although the
author
Detlef Borchers is well known for the legendary SCO-tail (SCO
vs. Linux: Die
unendliche Geschichte),
a long series of SCO related news stories. I'm quite
sure that he
frequently reads all your articles.
I think this pretty
well
illustrates my own concern about how your job as a director of
OSRM
interferes (ups, spell checker prevented: “interfears”) with
your
engagement in the Anti-FUD movement. OSRM's business is some how
based on
the FUD, and without FUD there would be absolutely no such
business. Although
they might reasonably claim to be on our
(Anti-FUD) side, i may compare this to
the Anti-Virus software
vendors. They are also on the customers side to fight
against the
evil threat of malware. But also for them, the existence of the
evil
is a fundamental part of their business and whenever there is a new
massive
virus/worm front around, this is “good news” for their
sales. Seeing you inside
of the Anti-FUD business has the bad
taste of possibly suspecting your
activities as marketing for selling
indemnifications as “Anti-FUD products”. Try
to see this from an
investor relations point of view. A potential investor would
ask
about the possible size of the target market. And you may have to
admit,
that this market heavily depends on the current level of FUD.
The more FUD, the
larger the OSRM market! So as an investor, if i
would like to encourage OSRMs
business,
what would i expect you to do with the FUD?
“Make some more
noise at Groklaw.org”, wouldn't that be a
reasonable strategy for an increased
OSRM business? I think this is
where your integrity in case of your true
Anti-FUD attitude is
in danger. Please don't get this wrong now. I do not
want to
say that your work on Groklaw was about making noise and increasing
FUD,
but the problem is that it may once be interpreted this way if
you work for a
company that makes profit out of (more) FUD and i think all your good work does
not deserve such an interpretation. I also don't
want to say that OSRMs
intentions are bad, but their business is
correlated with the level of FUD as
the Anti-Virus software vendors
business is related to the amount of virus
problems. This does not
mean that one of each other is responsible himself for
the problems
they deal with, but both make their profit out of it and the
more
profit, the more of a problem (malware or FUD) we are facing. So it
is even
a dependency.
You may also take into account that Groklaw and OSRM are
seen from
far more countries than the US and probably most of the non-US
readers
like me do not understand much about why it takes a US court
over a year to
achieve absolutely nothing, were a german court
protected the Linux business
almost instantly.
Well, finally i have another link for you that
illustrates not everybody here in Germany gets you and OSRM wrong :-):
SPIEGEL
Online:
Versicherung gegen SCO-Klagen [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- For profit? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 05:38 PM EDT
- For profit? - Authored by: PM on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 06:23 PM EDT
- For profit? - Authored by: sth on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 08:22 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 08:39 PM EDT |
The FLOSS community is evolving, and the old timers really want things to
remain simple and as familiar as the good old days.
Well, the FLOSS community must evolve or fail. PJ's company has done the
FLOSS community a unique service by legally researching the Linux kernel
source pedigree. Thank you for your forward looking vision. Thank you for
your hard work.
Please give talks at conferences to explain what you have done and what
you anticipate as future legal maneuvers against FLOSS. Please educate
the old timers that Gates will continue to kick their teeth in unless they
wake up and evolve.
As a new business, your original business model probably will change as
your market is defined and your services expand. Your business might help
IBM, Novell, RedHat, HP, and other big businesses right now. Looking to
the future, improvements in source management and periodic scrubs for
patent infringement might enlist your business.
It cracks me up to read such self-righteous lectures as are above. Reason
is necessary to guide FLOSS through these dangerous times. FLOSS is not
the end, it is the means to an information based society.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
