OSRM Declares Linux Free of Copyright Violations 347
tmu writes "According to a recent press release, the Linux 2.4 and 2.6 kernels are free of any code that violate copyrights. OSRM, the new startup formed by Daniel Egger and including groklaw founder Pamela Jones, completed a 6-month review of all code in both kernels. They must be pretty confident of the results, because they're offering product liability insurance to both developers and users."
Backed with the foundation of a house of cards... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry... an insurance company that's offering only one liability product that is either going to have claims from all customers or have no claims at all is not going to fly. Either they'll be pocketing all of the premiums, or the whole house of cards will colapse in more claims than they can ever handle. There's no middle case... either every user of Linux is going to end up owing big bucks to SCO, or none of them do.
Re:Backed with the foundation of a house of cards. (Score:2)
Re:Backed with the foundation of a house of cards. (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce
Re:Backed with the foundation of a house of cards. (Score:3, Insightful)
The same reasoning that makes insuring against this sort of thing difficult would also, it seems to me, make reinsurance difficult to get.
Reinsurance is appropriate when a risk is insurable, but more capital is needed. Here there's some question regarding whether the risk is sufficiently appealing to (re-)insurers as a business proposition, especially when part of that risk is made up of potential defense costs and SCO, as we all know, is rather litigious.
Re:Backed with the foundation of a house of cards. (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously, this is really just a lot of fluff at this point. $100k in defense costs and $1m in limits is nothing for large companies that buy $50m - $100m liability towers, and a small company looking for coverage can buy $1m in limits (including software copyright) for a lot less than $30k.
And for the record, Bruce, reinsurance is not a great answer. Just look at the problems the London markets are having getting Swiss Re to pay their claims. For a small, poorly capitalized company like OSRM, more than 3 or 4 losses (which their adverse selection will guarantee) will leave them cash flow negative, unable to continue functioning while they wait for the reinsurers to cut a check.
Re:Backed with the foundation of a house of cards. (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce
Re:Backed with the foundation of a house of cards. (Score:3, Interesting)
To be honest, anyone claiming there is absoloutely no questionable code sounds as suspect as SCO claiming it's all questionable code. Reality is never black and white like that.
Of course,
Re:Backed with the foundation of a house of cards. (Score:3, Insightful)
Although I'm not privy to the facts, I'm not sure why it *couldn't* be "black and white", consider that the following has to be true for the code to be infringing on copyrights.
If X's code *is* in the kernel AND X actually owns the copyright(!) AND If that code is not legally GPL'd/BSD'd AND the code passes $patent_tests*.
X's *claims* to own copyrights may be blatantly false,e.g. certain claims of SCO's have been vehemently debunked by Linus himself, because he wrote it.
Re:I think I get it, now... (Score:4, Informative)
Bruce
Re:Backed with the foundation of a house of cards. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because BigInsurCo knows how to evaluate risk, but doesn't know anything about Linux?
Because, to BigInsurCo, it is too small an operation to bother dealing with the details by themselves?
Because OSRM seem to be offering more than just insurance (such as access to their IP lawyers)?
Re:Backed with the foundation of a house of cards. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Backed with the foundation of a house of cards. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you, like many people, are misreading the service being provided by this company. They aren't offering to have you pay into their banks so that if SCO comes a knockin' you can just roll over and pay them with money from OSRM. Rather, what they are providing is material aid to your company so that you can take SCO to court and fight the charges. Therefore, it is only likely to be providing this aid to a few companies at a time, and can likely get injunctions to slow down any other cases in which they are involved. So, it's relatively unlikely that they'll be asked to pay all the claims at the same time.
I think the more important point is that we shouldn't make the assumption that SCO will be the only SCO. Unless somehow magically all of its cases end in "There cannot possibly under any circumstances be any code in Linux that wasn't meant to be there," which is TERRIBLY unlikely not only because of the innate absurdity of the court ruling on the potential "ownership" of every line of code, including those not material to the case, but also because none of the cases actually deal with the IP except for the Novell and Red Hat ones, one of which says SCO doesn't really own the code to begin with. Simply put, no matter what happens, there is still a vulnerability with open source with so many contributors that someone will view it as an easy target for stock-pumping litigation.
In light of this, it's much more obvious why a company might be willing to shell out $100,000 a year to reduce their risk of having to shell out $Millions to pay for legal defense or $millions in settlement fees.
Re:Backed with the foundation of a house of cards. (Score:3, Interesting)
I think a ruling stating that there is no difinitive evidence that there is offending code in linux and that all the code in Linux belongs in the public domain would not be unreasonable.
Linus wrote the kernel, everything else is subsidary and fluid. Linux as a whole can
Re:Backed with the foundation of a house of cards. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Backed with the foundation of a house of cards. (Score:3, Informative)
Except for one small, leetle teensie problem. Linux isn't in the public domain now. Never was.
Hopefully, it never will be.
See, there's this thing, called the GPL. It's a license. A license is a legal mechanism (usually based on contract or some other terms and conditions) that allows you to do something that's otherwise
Parent is Right (Score:5, Insightful)
My guess is nobody will really buy this insurance except those, like OSRM itself, who just want to make a statement. The real announcement here is that an audit of the Linux kernel was completed and that somebody's willing to put some money where their mouth is.
Re:Parent is Right (Score:3, Informative)
You seem to think that if SCO wins a case, they're going to own Linux. That's not very likely. If IBM contributed SCO's code to Linux, that's between IBM and SCO: IBM would have to pay loads of money to SCO for damages, and the code would have to be removed. If IBM contributed their own code to Linux in breach of contract with SCO, IBM would have to pay SCO mone
Respectfully Disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the government (SEC?), for whatever reason, is allowing this nonsense to continue, this company is fighting fire with fire and responding in tow: they are attacking SCO on the battleground they themselves defined: the media. They are standing up and saying "We've audited Linux cover to cover, and you, sirs, are full of it."
This is what we need. More news that gets the word out that SCO is an organization of extortionists who have learned to use the slow, inefficient, expensive legal system as a weapon.
To boil it down: SCO is metaphorically using the old "pretending the finger in your pocket is a gun" shtick, and OSRM is announcing "That's your finger, jackass."
Re:Respectfully Disagree (Score:4, Interesting)
For what its worth, Linux will go on, and I think SCO's tactics of suing users is in poor taste. The offending code, if any, can be removed or possibly changed and the majority of enterprise users will remain unaffected.
Re:Respectfully Disagree (Score:4, Informative)
So you know - the "shreds' of evidence you refer to took almost a year for SCO to produce, hardly "offered" as much as produced under pressure. Also, it was references to header files and standard error files - hardly unique, and in other places, code that could, within hours, be attributed to other sources. If there were really offending code, SCO could have tried to get someone with some sort credibility in the Linux community to sign an NDA in the first place, not start out by deceiving the public with the "MIT math team" or whatever it was they claimed - a dept MIT claims has never existed.
Re:Respectfully Disagree (Score:3, Funny)
If you can't tell the difference, be very, very careful when you pick your nose...
SCO insurance is really dangerous... (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's not forget that Bill Gates was a master poker player. He's using the threat of an endless series of raises (Microsoft's lawyers disguised as SCO vs. the lawyer's of the target company).
No one in their right mind would play poker like this against the richest man in the world. It is impossible to win because he will always out raise you.
Linux must develop a different strategy against Microsoft/SCO.
Richest guy... (Score:5, Funny)
I think Ingvar Kamprad [reuters.com] looks like a nice enough guy [google.com.au] to play poker with...??
Oh, did you mean the second richest guy? That Bill dude?
Re:Richest guy... (Score:3, Funny)
You would play poker against a billionaire who still flies economy class?? That guy must really love his money.
-a
Re:SCO insurance is really dangerous... (Score:5, Informative)
Urban Legend or just Apocryphal, the story goes Bill Gates was playing $3-$6 Texas Hold'em at the Mirage Casino in Las Vegas in the early 90's. Seeing Doyle Brunson, 2 time World Series of NL Hold'em Poker, playing $2000-$4000 Hold'em in the upper section, Bill Gates had a lacky go buy Doyle Brunson's book -- Super System, co-authored by David Sklansky, Mike Caro, Chip Reese, and Bobby Baldwin (current casino mananger of Mirage). He [Gates] then sent the lacky over to get the book autographed. Doyle Brunson is reported to have said something like: "If the richest man in the world doesn't have the guts to come over and play me, I'm certainly not going to give him my autograph".
Oh, and as for Linux 2.4 and 2.6 insurance -- is this implicitly admitting that SCO actually has a case against 2.5?
Re:Backed with the foundation of a house of cards. (Score:5, Informative)
Take a southern California or Tokyo-region real estate insurance company - they're in the same kind of boat. One big earthquake and they are up a very narrow creek with nary a paddle in sight. So what they do is insure their claims in turn in other companies; preferably companies that have little or no other exposure to the same risks. And of course, thiscompany would be a reinsurer for other comapnies as well.
For the risk-taking company, it is a way to dilute risk; rather than, as you say, have either a huge windfall or a total disaster every year, you try to arrange for a reasonable profit every year, rather than just on average.
For the reinsurer, this is another way to dilute risk, and get in on an area in which you have no expertise of your own; from this perspective, the spread between what the company pays you and what they take in from the original insurees is the payment they get for being the expert in the area so you don't have to. A northern European insurance company does not have much in-house expertise on north American earthquakes or their precise effect on real estate holdings, and they would not attract enough business to make it worthwhile, but by reinsuring a California company they get into that business, while relying on that company to do a far better risk assessment than they could do themselves.
The problems occur, of course, if enough things (like natural disasters) happen in a short enough time frame; that can bring _every_ insurance company into trouble, even companies that at first glance have nothing to do with it. You may see your car insurance rise 20% because of flooding in south China, a hurricane off the coast of Florida and a medium-scale earthquake in Hokkaido in the same year.
Not bloody likely (Score:3, Informative)
Do you know what reinsurance is?
What happens is that OSRM will insure FooCo for, say, $10 billion. Of that, OSRM only covers up to $1M. Most claims are going to be in that small range. Small claims are covered by FooCo, who has a $5k deductible on their policy. (FooCo will have very high premiums with such a low deductible.)
OSRM sells the rest of the liability off to reinsurance companies in various tiers. Reinsurance A covers the nex
Do we really need this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do we really need this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Do we really need this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Do we really need this? (Score:2, Interesting)
Would you rather pay SCO?
"In three years time, we'd be paying more than the cost of SCO's unnecessary license for a minuscule amount of coverage that we don't need, because, as they themselves say, Linux is free of copyright infringements."
Do you believe that SCO will be around in 48 months? I don't. If they are not then you save money and are spared hassle. If SCO survives for 3 years well then see response to question one.
Re:Do we really need this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Bruce
Patent insurance? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is OSRM offering patent insurance? I didn't see that in the press release.
Re:Patent insurance? (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce
Re:Patent insurance? (Score:5, Interesting)
You're insane. You can't make money in patent insurance. The defense costs are too high, and the losses to large if you lose. That's why no one writes it.
Swiss Re has been known to write the occasional policy. Of course, it's with a $5m retention and indemnity only, and you're generally paying about 40% rate on-line.
Re:Patent insurance? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds somewhat similar to :
"You can't make money on something you give away for free"
I don't think the goal is to turn into the allstate or geico of the software world, I think it is more along the lines of getting the PHB's of the world to listen, and have some actual backing. (even if it isn't a lot) Its all paper to the higher ups of the world, and this sure as hell isn't aimed at your average perl hack.
Re:Do we really need this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Your press release states that you "will charge $250 to individual Linux developers". So you admit that you are charging hundreds of dollars for something unnecessary? If I wanted to waste money, I could pay $699 to SCO instead.
Are you actually offering this insurance yet? It sounds like you have not even found a reinsurer after spending months trying. Even if I wanted this insurance, I would be a fool to pay premiums before you have any sort of financial backing.
I have great respect for Bruce and Pamela, but frankly this reeks of opportunism and greed. OSRM will only be able to sell this product by scaring companies into thinking it is necessary. How will that possibly help Open Source? The venture capitalist who started this organization (Daniel Egger) has already begin spreading FUD. Just a few days ago he completely mischaracterized the DaimlerChristler suit. The OSRM web site has been cleaned up after intense criticism, but still says things like "organizations gaging the risks of Open Source software face a vacuum of clear information." On the contrary, I know of hundreds of highly convincing paper from lawyers like Eben Moglen dismissing the SCO claims.
Because your business is to scare people into buying insurance, you neglect to mention the millions of dollars in defense money already available free from the OSDN. There is also the million dollar Redhat Open Source Now fund. And don't forget vendor indemnification freely available for customers of Redhat, HP, Novell, etc. You do mention vendor indemnification on the OSRM site, but only to attack it as inferior to your insurance.
The OSRM page states that "OSRM has generated the widespread support of Open Source leaders," but the only ones I have seen supporting it are on the OSRM payroll. Without the credibility of PJ and BP, this project would be universally ridiculed. Egger made a good decision in paying you off (I'm sorry that sounds harsh, but we all know he hired you two for your credibility in the open source world).
You are a smart guy and have studied this more than I have. So perhaps you can enlighten me as to why I should consider this a good thing. Or maybe you are just trying to cash out on the current Linux FUD. That isn't illegal, but please don't cast it as doing us a favor.
Re:Do we really need this? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is what I worry about. Some turkey sues an Open Source developer with intent to restrain. Not to recover funds. Said developer says "Uh-oh, I don't have the funds to support a single day in court. I'd better sign my copyright over to that turkey, sign whatever documents he has saying that I will never, ever write Open Source again, and find some other way to entertain myself."
$25,000 is not necessarily enough to defend every case, but it's enough to tide you over until you can get a publicly-funded defense up and running.
Regarding OSDL (not OSDN!) I don't know if there will be anything left for you when they are done with Autozone and Damiler, etc. Same with the Red Hat funds. I hope there is and that they are available to you. And also, I am worried about what happens if one of OSDL's corporate members is the plaintiff in a patent case against Open Source software. So, having a party that is not tied to HP and IBM is probably a good thing. And having a party that concentrates the funds for defending Open Source software into an entity that can actually do something is a good thing, too.
I think the most important point for the individual Open Source developer is "if you don't think you need this - you probably don't". Those who do need it know who they are.
Bruce
Re:Do we really need this? (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect $25,000 is not enough to defend *any* case. That would barely cover David Boies's laundry bills.
I wonder how much IBM has spent so far -- a lot more than $25,000, I'm sure -- and the case is still at least a year short of going to trial.
Bruce - what happened to your interview? (Score:3)
SCO is per CPU (Score:4, Informative)
Re:SCO is per CPU (Score:5, Informative)
That is, $699 until they decide that they want more money from you. SCO takes particular pride in suing only their own customers. It doesn't pay to negotiate with terrorists.
Insurance (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Insurance (Score:5, Informative)
Essentially they're trying to call SCO's bluff.
Also... (Score:5, Funny)
This is asinine (Score:2, Troll)
Re:This is asinine (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is asinine (Score:3, Insightful)
From SCO you would be buying a license that protects you from being sued by them, and only them. From these other guys you would be paying a liability license that protects you from whoever it is that wants to sue you.
Now if that's not enough of a difference there is the moral implications of paying SCO. By doing so you are supporting their business model. You are asking for other companies to use it and ask you for a difference fee to pr
Re:This is asinine (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is asinine (Score:3, Insightful)
This is absolutely worthless... buy it anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, if you've got a PHB who's seriously thinking about sending his $699 per server into SCO... this may just be a company that you can use to fool your fooled-by-SCO PHB into sending money to the anti-SCO lawyers instead of the pro-SCO lawyers.
what about ....? (Score:2, Interesting)
Where's the methodology (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where's the methodology (Score:4, Insightful)
They're so confident of their claim, that they're willing to put their money where their mouth is.
In any case, what specifically would you want to see? All of the source code of all the operating systems they looked at with check marks next to each line? And who would you choose for an independant third party?
PC speaks for herself... (Score:5, Informative)
SCO business plan (Score:2, Funny)
2. sue everyone who buys it
3. they settle immediately and use the insurance to pay their licensing fees
4. insurance company goes bankrupt, but it doesn't matter, we've already got the cash.
How do they know anything we don't? (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, SCO might turn out to have nothing but some farm animals behind door #3, and that outcome is more likely than not to be the one that comes out in the end... but really, what more is this group doing but just spreading counter-FUD about SCO's FUD?
Besides, if you take them at their word, then you don't need their insurance because you're exposed to no risk. They're basically offering a competive form of "SCO lawsuit insurance" that seems only about as strong as buying SCO's "license".
Re:How do they know anything we don't? (Score:5, Informative)
if you read the article, you would have seen that they traced the roots of all the code (be it bsd/pd or the credited author) and are basing their opinion on that research. They feel they have "sourced" all the source.
Re:How do they know anything we don't? (Score:5, Interesting)
There are basically two lines of analysis without having to see SCO's code. One is to find the corresponding Linux code in previously released code. I should doublecheck my facts on this, but as an example, I believe that most of the old BSD Unix has been publicly released already, so any code from such a source is free and clear.
The other line is to trace the sources of the code to reliable authors. If you can trust those authors when they say that they wrote and did not copy a piece of code, and that they then gave their permission to include that code in Linux, then that code can be trusted.
If this announcement is not just some kind of smoke and mirrors, then SCO should start sinking quickly into the abyss.
The way they are falling (Score:2)
they might need a parachute [miami.com] soon.
Please send your nickels and dimes to the "Darl McBride this-is-not-hopeless-really fund".
SCO is nuts (Score:2, Interesting)
If SCO has copyright material that has been infringed upon, they have to
+1 funny (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, they only need to break $20K, and now they're doing better than Darl & Co.
This is hillarious. Darl's been huffing and puffing for a year trying to squeeze water out of a rock; now here comes OSRM, and before long they made more money essentially by betting that Darl's got nuthin!
Re:+1 funny (Score:3, Funny)
Remind me to invite McBride to the next poker evening.
Re:+1 funny (Score:3, Funny)
If this was poker, OSRM is basically telling the table that SCO's hand is a 5-high.
(But wait a second... there's no way SCO's hand can be as bad as a 5-high...)
Re:+1 funny (Score:3, Funny)
Sure it can. SCO is holding a two, a three, a five, the Rules of Poker card (in Spanish), and a "powerful card that [they] intend to reveal in court"...which appears to be a coaster.
Re:+1 funny (Score:3, Informative)
Isn't the lowest possible hand a 7-high? You can't pick five cards lower than a seven without getting a pair or a straight.
Of course, the real deal here is that they don't have a hand.
--
"Seven-high beats no cards."
Conflict of interest (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hogwash (Score:3, Interesting)
There is now financial interests within the Linux Community in publicizing the risks associated with Linux. Which may have the effect of amplifying Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt rather than dismissing it.
There's also the matter that some legal information or opinions may be reserved for those who are paying in rather than given to everyone.
I'm not trying to ascribe bad motives to the people behind this -- I just don't think they've thought out this enterprise to
Insurance fees more expensive than SCO Bribe (Score:2, Funny)
Debunking the FUD and myths (Score:5, Insightful)
1. This is voluntary insurance. Don't want it? Don't get it.
2. This isn't targeted at users, who are not at risk in any case, so 95% of us can move on, nothing to see here.
3. This has nothing to do with the risks of Linux, for there is nothing wrong with Linux. Instead, it's about the fact that, as SCO showed, there are bad people who want to make trouble for FOSS and will use nuisance suits in order to do that. Sad but true, but let's at least look at the world realistically. We now have another tool to fight these losers.
4. If you are a kernel developer, or a big-pocketed Linux corporate user, and you think you could become a target of one of these nuisance suits, you now have a chance to get insurance against such. Voluntary. Don't want it? Don't get it.
5. Does this make you sad? Blame the bad people who want to cause trouble for FOSS, not the people who are stepping up to try to help.
If it's safe, why do we need insurance? (Score:4, Interesting)
If the kernel is free of copyright violations, why do we need insurance?
That's like saying "I guarantee there is no danger of flooding here. But I would be happy to sell you flood insurance."
Re:If it's safe, why do we need insurance? (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't that what all insurance companies do? Playing the odds when statistics are firmly on their side...
Here's why (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the correct analogy would be more like this:
"I guarantee there is no natural danger of flooding here, but there are rustlers out there going around causing floods and if you want to protect yourself, try this."
Re:If it's safe, why do we need insurance? (Score:5, Insightful)
But imagine you're trying to convince your PHB that you need to deploy linux in your enterprise.
"But what about all this copyright that SCO is claiming?" he asks.
Now you can tell him "It's just FUD/BS." (which we know is true, but not all non-techs do).
Or you can tell him "It's just FUD/BS, but if you're worried we can purchase 3% liability a year in insurance."
Which one is he more likely to listen to?
If the $699 per seat is the liability they refer to, then that's $20/year per linux box.
So like most insurances, this is just offering peace of mind for those who worry about the highly unlikely event of a catastrophe (or should that be fiaSCO?).
A couple of thoughts. (Score:5, Insightful)
2 - We all know that this insurance is unnecessary. It isn't for us. It is for risk averse PHBs. It seems as much like a PR stunt as a viable business. The FUDmeisters dared the Linux community to indemnify the end users. A couple of companies rose to the challenge and here is yet another response. Having said that, if they can make a buck well, good for them.
As a thousand others have observed: check the Windows EULA.
"Who ya goin to call? FUD-busters!" (ok now I'm getting silly)
This insurance sounds familiar... (Score:5, Funny)
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I would like to buy your rock.
The insurance cost? (Score:3, Informative)
I think they're offering insurance for a company, not per copy of Linux you're using. Hence if you're a big company using 500+ copies of Linux... $250/year is nothing compared to the $300k licensing fee charge SCO could try to hit you with.
Re:The insurance cost? (Score:5, Informative)
Total Cost of Ownership (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess that's what M$'s 50 million bought them. Another phantom 'cost' which they can use as an allegation against Free Software.
I reckon the 'public' won't see past the M$ spin, to appeciate that by its nature Free/Open Software is continually being checked for copyright infringements.
So? (Score:3, Insightful)
Does OSRM have any more credibility in the court's eyes or SCO's eyes than the thousands of Linux users who have been saying the same thing for almost a year?
I'm Confused (Score:3, Funny)
A - Give it to SCO
B - Buy Linux Insurance
C - Spend it on beer and porn
A fund to buy SCO's "IP" (Score:5, Interesting)
The OS community playing IP vulture doesn't seem like too bad an idea. SCO does have some code that could be bought and GPL'ed, and the company isn't gonna be worth much a year from now. Let's pool.
Email the money to me for now;)
HHOS
Re:A fund to buy SCO's "IP" (Score:3, Funny)
"Putting your money where _their_ mouth is"? (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, isn't accepting money to do this taking advantage of the FUD that people already have?
Another thing to consider is that the linux legal defense fund [osdl.org] setup up by OSDL has already raised $3 million [osdl.org]
Well, if they can do that... (Score:4, Funny)
OSRM Declares Linux Free of Copyright Violations
Whoa, they can do that?? Well, hell...
I, DeadVulcan, declare that Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction.
Re:Well, if they can do that... (Score:4, Funny)
I, DeadVulcan, declare that Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction.
See? It worked.
That's not how insurance works? (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought the purpose of insurance was to turn random unpredictable costly expenses in your lifetime into small, fixed, periodic payments.
If the numbers are done properly, the amount of money you will pay in your lifetime to this cause is equal to the amount of money you will pay in premiums, but you can plan for paying premiums. In exchange for this convenience, the insurer collects slightly more money to cover operating expenses and so that they can turn a profit on their promise. Due to the economies of scale, it may actually be cheaper to go with an insurance company in spite of their overhead costs.
But anyway...
Insure Linux against intellectual property violations? Lets apply the formula:
Number of dollars that I plan to pay fighting off intellectual property claims on Linux: 0.
I guess I can pass on this kind of insurance.
PJ offering a better product than SCO (Score:5, Insightful)
PJ is selling insurance that covers *any* infractions.
If a company has a choice between purchasing real insurance from PJ or "insurance" from SCO, they're almost certain to do better with PJ.
'course, I think the whole set of concerns is a lot of baloney -- open source types tend to be pretty careful about licenses -- but it's not as if you can claim that PJ has falsely inflated her product's merits -- she's been saying the same thing for quite a long time.
missing links (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think there's code in the kernel with copyright that conflicts with the GPL. And it's incumbent on any competing copyright holder (*cough* SCO *cough*) to prove they have the controlling copyright. But OSRM seems to be placing an implausibly confident bet on that conjecture.
Meanwhile, their liability insurance is totally unrelated to their bet on Linux copyright unencumbrance. The liability insurance is merely betting that less than 3% of the insured value of the software they cover is malware. Charging 3% of that insured value, and paying less than 3% in claims, is the aggregate arbitrage of which all insurance is made. But nowhere in that calculus does any Linux copyright liability appear. There's a missing monkey in here somewhere.
Re:missing links (Score:3, Insightful)
What SCO ist demonstrating are inherent flaws of the concept of intellectual property treated much like a physical asset. The one flaw is that after a number of sales, licences, and contracts, nobody does know any more who owns what, and whether the o
Quit worrying about SCO (Score:5, Informative)
-
Their stock is in a screaming dive. [yahoo.com] Closed at $7.77 today, down from $22 at peak.
-
Their VCs want their money back.
-
Before they can sue Linux users over copyright violations, they have to beat IBM and Novell and Red Hat and Damlier-Chrysler or AutoZone.
-
They're losing against IBM, and the other suits aren't going anywhere yet.
-
IBM's law firm is Cravath, the big hammer of corporate litigation. Cravath puts huge teams of lawyers on the job and has an organized process for not missing anything and not making mistakes.
Nobody wins a weak suit against Cravath.
-
SCO has never sued a Linux user that didn't have a previous contract with SCO. If they try, any such suit can be stalled until the big lawsuits are settled, for the same reason the Red Hat lawsuit is on hold.
-
Because SCO has been sueing their own customers, it's dangerous to become an SCO customer. SCO sales have thus tanked.
So there.This smells of snake-oil (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, OK, I know that some of the board members of this company are people we most of us respect. And judging by what Bruce Perens, at least, has contributed to this discussion it seems they really believe in the idea.
But it smells of snake oil.
One cannot, in general, prove a negative. I've no doubt this company has diligently gone through every line of the kernel and reviewed it. But they have not, because they cannot have, diligently gone through every line of pre-existing proprietary computer code on the planet. The majority of computer programs are never released in source form, and it is not normally possible to reconstruct the original source by reverse engineering a stripped binary. So for the vast majority of legally copyright software out there, they did not have the source and could not compare Linux against it.
But that, actually, is beside the point.
By reading diligently through the code the company may potentially put something back into Linux; they may notice and report back to the relevent authors blunders, inelegancies and bugs.
They may.
But apart from that, they make no contribution back to the community. They are, in effect, another bunch of freeloading parasites on the community - the moral equivalent of head lice. They cannot have done what they say they've done, because it is a logical and practical impossibility. But they will profit - probably substantially - on the fears of ill-informed or risk averse corporate managements, and that profit is at least to some extent at the community's expense, because it siphons off money that those corporations were at least in principle prepared to spend on Linux.
Copyright iviolation in drivers/usb/emi26.c (Score:3, Interesting)
The file drivers/usb/emi26_fw.h carry the license below:
* This firmware is for the Emagic EMI 2|6 Audio Interface
*
* The firmware contained herein is Copyright (c) 1999-2002 Emagic
* as an unpublished work. This notice does not imply unrestricted
* or public access to this firmware which is a trade secret of Emagic,
* and which may not be reproduced, used, sold or transferred to
* any third party without Emagic's written consent. All Rights Reserved.
*
* This firmware may not be modified and may only be used with the
* Emagic EMI 2|6 Audio Interface. Distribution and/or Modification of
* any driver which includes this firmware, in whole or in part,
* requires the inclusion of this statement.
*/
AFAIK there is no written statement from Emagic that it allows such code to be included in GPL kernel.
See for details bug 242895 at
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi
Conflict of Interest? (Score:3, Interesting)
because they're offering product liability insurance to both developers and users."
Now this is a weird situation.
And before anything else let me say that I am a strong advocate for free software and think Pamela Jones and groklaw have done a wonderful service to the community by applying intense legal play-by-play to the SCO case.
But.
If they're in the business of selling insurance against copyright attacks on Linux, does that not represent a conflict of interest?
If they were after the money, I would have expected their assessments to have at least a small note of ominious nature so that potential clients would be inclined to buy that insurance.
In an era when every other day you hear about yet another lapse in corporate ethics, with the problems that Arthur Anderson got into by offering consulting services to the same clients to whom they offered auditing services, people have to be a lot more careful.
Re:If it's so free of copyright infringement.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bruce
Re:If it's so free of copyright infringement.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Look for sites about tort reform.
Thanks
Bruce
Re:If it's so free of copyright infringement.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm. YANAL, are Y? In fact, I think you'll find that legal aid in the UK doesn't cover civil litigation of this sort. The taxpayer quite rightly doesn't feel that he or she has any role in funding people's lawsuits. The sole exception here is medical negligence claims, which are still legally aided due to the huge cost of bringing an action.
You misunderstand how contingency fee arran
Re:If it's so free of copyright infringement.... (Score:5, Informative)
Depends if you mean sued as in 'successfully sued', or just the initiation of the process, and if you believe your nation's legal system is just and fair.
Even "unsuccessfully sued" can cost someone a hell of a lot of money. Have you seen how long some of these cases can drag out? It costs money just to defend yourself. And if you successfully defend yourself, you still have to launch your own counter-suit if you want to reclaim any of those losses.
While insurance seems of little use to most people, I can see some companies thinking it's a worthwhile investment.
Re:One work SCAM (Score:3, Interesting)
B. Before SCO was SCO, AT&T was SCO - see the BSD debacle to know what I mean.
In effect, we know SCO is full shit - but what about future companies? What would you do, if right now, SCO marched up to your business and demanded 20k in license fees?
Most would cave in. This insurance will help you fight.
If this insurance becomes available to individuals, I will get it - just because I reall
Re:No, not true (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you R the F'ing A? Because if that isn't selling insurance, I don't know what is.
Now if she begins to put ads all over Groklaw, or shills insurance on a daily basis with no news connection, or somehow sells out, I'll be pointing it out too
So it's OK for her to use the site to shill insurance provided:
a.) She has a news hook to hang it on?
b.) She doesn't do it every day?
Like it or not, PJ now has a vested financial interest in seeing these