Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Caldera Government HP The Courts Your Rights Online News

HP Offers Linux Purchasers Indemnification 326

Posted by timothy from the at-least-on-paper dept.
PnViking writes points out this story in the Detroit News, writing "HP is now covering any claims from SCO if you bought Linux and have a support contract from them: '"We will provide full indemnity across the entire suite for any SCO-related action," said Martin Fink, HP's vice president of Linux. "If (customers) were to get sued by SCO, we would take over their defense and assume liability on their behalf."'" The catch is, you have to be running it on HP equipment ;)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

HP Offers Linux Purchasers Indemnification More

HP Offers Linux Purchasers Indemnification

Comments Filter:

  • Proof (Score:5, Insightful)

    by artios ( 524941 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:19AM (#7042429)
    Now that is what we call good solid evidence (as if we didn't have enough) that SCO is pulling stuff out of it's royal... A big company like HP, doesn't just all of a sudden decide it's going to defend against a lost case.

    • Re:Proof (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AlricTheMad ( 463234 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:21AM (#7042444)
      Actually I would wager that they are covering thier bottom line.
      Tough for them to sell HP Hardware and Linux solutions if buys are worried about getting sued if they do buy.

      AlricTheMad

      • Re:Proof (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:25AM (#7042485)
        I'd say there's bits of both in there. They're certainly mentioning it publicly as a marketing thing. "we'll cover you, that's a HP advantage" etc.

        It's a risk/benefit thing. HP get the benefit of the world knowing they're covered under HP. HP know the risk SCO's claims mean anything is less than that benefit.
      • Actually I would wager that they are covering thier bottom line. Tough for them to sell HP Hardware and Linux solutions if buys are worried about getting sued if they do buy.

        Not only that, but if SCO sues a series of Linux users and HP stands between SCO and the user, HP will still have all the remaining HP-Linux buyers to back the lawsuit costs. No matter if the users are sued are 10 or 1000.

        Anyway, I think that the "HP official server" (or workstation) shipped with Linux still covers a small part of

      • Let's not forget... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by RoLi ( 141856 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:55AM (#7042700)
        ... that SCO so far didn't dare to sue anybody for using Linux.

        They did sue IBM for violating "their" IP which has nothing to do with Linux or the GPL.

    • Re:Proof (Score:5, Informative)

      by passthecrackpipe ( 598773 ) * <passthecrackpipe.hotmail@com> on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:48AM (#7042665)
      Proof of the fact that all commercial players are using scare tactics to sell kit, that is. Those vendors that offer "indemnification" provided you use their hardware or whatever catch there is, are just as bad as SCO.

      Vendors are slowly realising that customers are increasingly clued-up about where, how, and on what they spend their money. I was with a customer recently that had been badgered and hammered around by Sun to upgrade their systems. The customer saw no good reason to do so, and subsequently, Sun came around to provide a "free systems review", with a resulting verdict that the software and (SPARC) hardware was out of date. The customer agreed about the software part, and deployed Linux across the ageing SPARC estate. The stuff is now faster, better, and easier to manage, and they recon they a have a few more years of life out of those systems.

      Sun turned around and claimed that the systems are now unsupported - not a big deal, customer said. if it breaks we will buy new (Intel.... hehe). Sun then turned around and went to the CEO and the legal department, talking about indemnification, SCO, courtcases and the world coming to an end. Luckily, the customer was not fazed, and Sun lost a *lot* of goodwill in that place. However, other customers will be scared and bullied into going along.

      If they only way you can flog your hardware is by using scare tactics, then you are *really* selling a pile of crap.....

      • Re:Proof (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Mostly a lurker ( 634878 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @08:07AM (#7042811)
        Your Sun story is a classic!

        However, I see nothing unreasonable about HP's position that they will indemnify only their own customers. What are they supposed to do: provide a contact e-mail address for free legal assistance, to be used by people who have downloaded Mandrake to run on their IBM PC and then subsequently received a threatening letter from SCO?

        • well, I am not stating that HP should indemnify everyone, i am saying they should not get on the indemnification bandwagon in the first place. It lends cedibility to what is for all intents and purposes a scam to begin with. It also makes HP look tacky

          • Re:Proof (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Mostly a lurker ( 634878 )
            OK, I think I understand your viewpoint. I disagree that it lends credibility: big companies do not freely assume legal responsibility in cases where they fear losing. IMHO, the PHBs will tend to be reassured by being told that HP will assume the legal risk. Perhaps it does make HP look a little tacky though: after all, they are doing something very similar to what Microsoft did a few weeks back (indemnifying customers against 3rd party license actions) and I find most things Microsoft does tacky!

          • Re:Proof (Score:4, Insightful)

            by WCMI92 ( 592436 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @09:34AM (#7043706) Homepage
            "well, I am not stating that HP should indemnify everyone, i am saying they should not get on the indemnification bandwagon in the first place. It lends cedibility to what is for all intents and purposes a scam to begin with. It also makes HP look tacky"

            How? HP is more or less defending EVERYONE by doing this. Anything gleaned from one suit can be used by all...

            I suspect that if SCO finds some end user who doesn't have the funds to defend himself, the Red Hat fund, and others will step up to the plate.

            Besides, the chances of SCO filing suits against end users is nil right now. It's all a threat that makes great FUD for their Microsoft and Sun masters...

            SCO doesn't have the money to file lawsuits like the RIAA does, in many jurisdictions, and to defend themselves against the counterclaims.

            They also can't risk one of these suits coming to an actual TRIAL either, especially before the IBM suit is heard (and disposed of).

            SCO's threats are total vaporware. Their ROI value to their MS and Sun investors is to keep the PERCEPTION of threat as high and continual as long as possible.

      • Re:Proof (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Zak3056 ( 69287 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @08:12AM (#7042854) Journal
        Proof of the fact that all commercial players are using scare tactics to sell kit, that is. Those vendors that offer "indemnification" provided you use their hardware or whatever catch there is, are just as bad as SCO

        Err... what exactly are you looking for HP to do? Indemnify EVERYONE who runs linux?

        Of COURSE they're limiting this to people who have HP hardware--thats what makes them HP customers!

      • Re:Proof (Score:4, Insightful)

        by junelson ( 652894 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @08:13AM (#7042866)
        How is this a negative? HP is stepping forward and resolving any customer concerns about running linux on HP systems. The more companies that follow suit, the less revenue SCO will be able to generate from linux licensing fees. And publicly it makes it clear that HP does not think SCO has a case.

        Comparing HP to SCO is ridiculous. Would you have them assume responsibility for every linux user? No CFO in their right mind would assume that risk for no possible return. Put aside your "all corporations are evil" fanaticism and see this for what it is - a positive move by a large equipment vendor that will help dismiss the scare tactics taken by SCO.

        • Re:Proof (Score:3, Interesting)

          by passthecrackpipe ( 598773 ) *
          dude, where did you get the idea that I think all corporations are evil, and where did you get the idea that am a fanatic? talk about being a quick on the draw when it comes to stereotyping. Sheesh, this place gets to be more like slashdot every day...

          Anyway, you miss the point - I feel they should not get on the whole indemnification bandwagon in the first place. It is a red herring - a scam put in place by SCO, and HP are simply giving the whole crazy "indemnification" story more credibility by pulling w
      • If they only way you can flog your hardware is by using scare tactics, then you are *really* selling a pile of crap.....

        Or their hardware is good and they are idiots.

      • Re:Proof (Score:3, Insightful)

        by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 )
        You may be right. But such tiny little details matter a lot. That HP is offering it is nice. Not major. Not a huge step forward for the penguin. It won't cure hunger, aids or pimples. But it is a nice gesture.

        It shows that a really big company that has a lot on its mind, a company that could easily just fall at Microsofts feet is ready to stand behind linux.

        They are risking something here. No matter how ridicilous we may find the case by SCO none of us will have a single word to say about. It will be up t

      • I don't know why this obvious flamebait, troll, and off topic post was moderated up. Perhaps we have a bunch of anti-sun mods today.

        Like why should a company offer indemnification to somebody not running the company hardware and some 3rd party distro of an open source -- in the case of HP. Or indemnification for somebody running ancient hardware with software that that they didn't distribute or qualify?

        It's great that your friend/customer was able to extend mileage out of it's aging Sun Equpment. It sp

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:20AM (#7042430)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • HP FUD (Score:4, Interesting)

      by GoofyBoy ( 44399 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:45AM (#7042639) Journal
      Perhaps HP lawyers just read the news.

      SCO has no intention to sue Linux end-users [theage.com.au]

      And there has to be limitations and fineprint to HP offer. No way HP if offer protection from every SCO case out there. Does that mean I can actively steal SCO code and be free of all legal consequences as long as its run on HP hardware?

      • Re:HP FUD (Score:4, Informative)

        by nyquility ( 706984 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @08:08AM (#7042825)
        Sorry, as much as FUD may be a motor of this as far as HP is concerned I have to wham you with a big, fat RTFA(s).

        The HP piece clearly lays out the extent of indemnity HP is giving its (hopefully) valued customers, I really doubt they would be slipshod or stupid enough to "fineprint" their customers into a lawsuit. They would probably just rely on the OSS community rectifying any violating code as soon as it is shown to them.

        The piece on SCO not sueing is full to the brim of hypocritical statements by SCO execs and lawyers which show that they may or may not sue, probably depending on how many of gullible Companies fall for their $699 invoice.

      • Re:HP FUD (Score:3, Informative)

        by Stephen Samuel ( 106962 )
        Perhaps HP lawyers just read the news.
        SCO has no intention to sue Linux end-users [theage.com.au]

        That was an SCO Australia spokesperson talking about the chances of SCO suing someone Down Under. Presuming that SCO had a real case (a big presumption), SCO US could still file suit and honestly say "That wasn't us talking, that was our aussie subsidiary".

        "Diplomacy is the art of telling a lion 'nice kitty, kitty, kitty' while you search for a big rock"
        - - Unknown

      • Yeah, SCO's word means a lot (Score:5, Insightful)

        by roystgnr ( 4015 ) <roy@stogn[ ].org ['ers' in gap]> on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @08:27AM (#7043002) Homepage
        SCO has no intention to sue Linux end-users

        Originally, SCO had no intention of suing anyone at all:
        According to McBride, [linuxjournal.com] "obviously Linux owes its heritage to UNIX, but not its code. We would not, nor will not, make such a claim."

        But at the beginning of August:
        "The legal liability [boston.com] for Linux clearly rests with the end user."

        "We have the ability [vnunet.com] to go to users with lawsuits and we will if we have to."

        McBride and company have never kept their story straight in the past - expecting them to do so now that they've made another statement we like would probably be overly optimistic.

  • Wow (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jdc180 ( 125863 )
    This is something all the companies should have been doing from the beginning(cough cough)IBM(cough cough). Companies like to have someone to point the finger to if something goes wrong, and HP just painted a huge target on themselves ;-)

    • Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Boiler99 ( 222701 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:24AM (#7042470)
      About that target though...HP has been respected in the business information services industry for quite some time (although merging with Compaq perhaps tarnished that, but hey that's another story ;) So really, companies who are not so familiar with SCO other than their recent run of litigations will see the lawsuit as more frivolous, and start to ignore it more and more.

      Really, the greatest side effect of major players lining up against SCO is that it will help undo the bad rep SCO gave Linux with the PHB's who don't know anything about tech other than what they see in the Wall Street Journal.

  • IBM? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bdowne01 ( 30824 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:20AM (#7042432) Homepage Journal
    Helloooo... IBM, are you listening??? Wait, wasn't HP the supposed Fourtune 500 company that bought a SCO license?

    • Re:IBM? (Score:3, Informative)

      by watzinaneihm ( 627119 )
      The article clearly says that they are not paying SCO a dime. Maybe the companies that paid were Microsoft and Sun?
      BTW this is a clear win for HP against both IBM and Dell. Their salesmen can say stuff like "See you are 100% protected, we give a complete solution (unlike dell)etc."
      Unless they end up having to actually (extremely unprobable) pay the 699 for all customers.

    • Re:IBM? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by skroz ( 7870 )

      Helloooo... IBM, are you listening??? Wait, wasn't HP the supposed Fourtune 500 company that bought a SCO license?

      And you may have just hit the nail right on the head. If HP owns a valid SCO license, and it requires that its customers run an HP provided version of Linux on HP hardware, they may be covered by the license that they own... their customers may already be running a licensed version. So win or lose, HP's customers are covered.

    • Re:IBM? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by killmenow ( 184444 )
      I don't know if HP bought a SCO license; but, I think it's a little early to start jumping on the "This is awesome! We're winning!" bandwagon or the "HP sux0rs! They're in bed with SCO and they're just doing this to make IBM look bad!" bandwagon.

      Of course, this being /., most of us will immediately jump to one side or the other...when what needs to happen is for us to stay calmly in the "undecided" middle and ask a lot of questions. To wit:
      1. What is HP's motivation for this announcement?
      2. Why now? Or mayb

    • Nope, it was SUN. (Score:4, Informative)

      by k98sven ( 324383 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @10:57AM (#7044664) Journal
      Wait, wasn't HP the supposed Fourtune 500 company that bought a SCO license?

      No.. Although it was speculated at the time. Also, HP was an original sponsor of the SCO users conference, but pulled out.

      The latest 10-Q quarterly report [yahoo.com] from SCO makes it clear that Sun was the other licensee:

      We initiated the SCOsource effort to review the status of these existing licensing and sublicensing agreements and to identify others in the industry that may be currently using our intellectual property without obtaining the necessary licenses. This effort resulted in the execution of two license agreements during the April 30, 2003 quarter. The first of these licenses was with Sun Microsystems, Inc. ("Sun"), a long-time licensee of the UNIX source code and a major participant in the UNIX industry, and was a "clean-up" license to cover items that were outside the scope of Sun's initial UNIX license. The second license was to Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft")"

  • Reinsured (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pork_spies ( 659663 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:20AM (#7042433)
    Presumably HP are doing this because they can now lay off the risk with an insuring for a low enough price to make it worthwhile. So this doesn't just mean HP are slam dunking SCO, but others - who have no direct IT interests - are doing it too. We are winning.

    • Re:Reinsured (Score:5, Insightful)

      by KillerLoop ( 202131 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:44AM (#7042625) Homepage
      I'm afraid we are losing.

      Color me paranoid, but maybe this was just some targeting practice at hurting Linux through the legal system. Up till now it was a roaring success. It stirred up a lot of fuss, and some are putting Linux on hold until the matter is resolved. Not a small feat for an obvious non-issue like the SCO claim.

      Just keep on bombarding the community with stuff like that, and Linux will get tainted with "perennial legal problems". A library here, some kernel code there... and even if every single one of the accusations turns out to be utter bullshit, many people may get the impression that it's only a matter of time until one of the claims hits home and they get hurt.

      • Re:Reinsured (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jerry ( 6400 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @08:04AM (#7042775)
        I'm afraid we are losing.


        I'm afraid you are wrong.


        Linux will get tainted with "perennial legal problems".


        That would be true only if people suspected that SCO had some justification and a chance to win their suit. The way it's turned out (past tense) McBride shot his mouth off one too many times and now people see him as merely bombastic. The big turn-a-round came when he showed 'infringed code' at his not so big West Coast affair last month, and it was quickly shown to be BSD-type legacy code. Combine that with legal-types stepping into the fray with analyses of SCO's chances of proving their claims and you have a complete route. With SCO being counter-sued for IP theft they don't have enough money in their coffers (nor in the Canopy Group coffers) to sustain a legal battle against the charges, and they've exhausted all takers for their bogus Unix 'license'. MS and Sun can only do that once, and no one else is interested.


        The only other group of people who 'think' SCO has a chance are those dedicated Microsurfties who push MS PR for personal profit while claiming to be unbiased 'analysts'.


        HP came out with this PR tactic because they know the battle is over and SCO has lost. Watch other companies take the same pledge in order to keep their Linux market alive.

      • Re:Reinsured (Score:5, Insightful)

        by theflea ( 585612 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @08:17AM (#7042915)
        I also cringe when I see linux's reputation tarnished, and so much FUD being passed around, but there's a flip side to the legal challenges.

        If the GPL and Linux can withstand the next few years in court, a new image might emerge. People might look at linux as "the OS everyone tried to kill, but couldn't".

        With so many twists and turns recently, I wouldn't dare predict what will happen, but I am generally optimistic.

        Oh, and the HP thing? It's like selling meteor strike insurance to all my friends & acquaintances. I mean, there is a chance that SCO could successfully sue a corporate linux user, but a very small one. Plus, didn't SCO say HP wasn't a target on their radar screen because HP UX was a properly licensed unix from way back?
  • I guess the reasoning there is you can't be sued if you can't get the product (HP hardware) to work.

  • Man, (Score:3, Funny)

    by Sevn ( 12012 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:21AM (#7042443) Homepage Journal
    SCO had better hurry up and think up some sweet smelling bullshit to keep that stock price inflated. News like this will start a tumble. All you people short selling SCO are about to make a bundle.

  • Good move on HP's part... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bvardi ( 620485 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:21AM (#7042447)
    They're going to get some good press out of this, pick up some new customers (especially on the corporate side) and at the same time generate some goodwill for themselves.

    AND at the same time they likely won't have to invest much in legal work - SCO doesn't really have a case (as has been demonstrated) and doesn't have the money to take on another big lawsuit anyways (think they would go after HP while the redhat/ibm lawsuits are out there? Not likely... their warchest has to be getting a bit less weighty these days)

    • Maybe good as a competitive move against IBM, but bad for Linux and good for SCO...

      HP's Actions Support SCO's Position That Linux is not Free [prnewswire.com]

      Yay, HP! You've handed SCO an opportunity to spread more FUD. Do you think we'll be hearing from Ms. DiDio soon?

      Gee, I wonder why IBM didn't do this.

      • Re:Good move on HP's part... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Ngwenya ( 147097 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @11:24AM (#7044996)
        ObDisclaimer: I work for HP, but this is a purely personal statement. HP's got nothing to do with it - in fact HP's attitude is made explicit from Martin's statement - it's for the courts to decide SCO's claims. HP will not prejudge the courts, but HP explicitly does not acknowledge the claim.

        SCO would have spun this anyway they want. If HP didn't offer indemnity for this vacuous case, then SCO claims HP is running scared of the court action and is letting its users hang in the wind.

        If, on the other hand, indemnification is offered, then HP lends validity to SCO's claim.

        In other words:

        HP: We don't assign any validity to this case.

        SCO: Aha! So you admit that there is a case. Hey everyone, HP says there is a case! Y'hear - HP says SCO will win its case!.

        Sorry, but these guys are in spin overdrive; they can't even tell truth from lies any more.

        --Ng

  • a question? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by linuxislandsucks ( 461335 )
    considering that suing any users of copyrighted works whether its software, books or etc for infringment of the creator of that work is a considered not to have alegal standing and be a frivilous lawsuit..

    What exactly is Hp indemifying since it woudl automatically win any lawsuit in this case given the conditions above?

    • Re:a question? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by stereoroid ( 234317 )
      It's not just about the legality of a Linux user's position, it's the legal cost of defending that position. HP's indemnification means that its users won't have the prospect of legal costs to worry about. It is the USA, after all, where your status in court depends on what you can afford to pay a lawyer.

  • finally (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Palverone ( 166646 )
    Finally a company with enough courage to protect their customers. I wonder if anyone else will follow?

  • superb news (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ben_of_copenhagen ( 649118 )
    HP must be rather confident that SCOs claims wont hold up in court. I feel somewhat reassured by that.
  • ... but the overall image of HP should get advantage of this initiative.

    I also think that HP doesn't start a campaign like this without being convinced that SCO claims have no ground. I wonder if they discovered something we don't know...
    • I wonder if they discovered something we don't know...

      They don't have to know anything we don't know to be confident of the outcome of this debacle. SCO have built a sand castle out of expedient fabrications. Courts have done stupid things in the past, but it would take an exceedingly stupid judge on an exceedingly bad day to look at this and see anything other than the dying litigious gasp of a company taken over by ravening weasels staging an epic pump and dump.

      This is such a farcical case, in any re

  • Keep in mind the caveat (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Compact Dick ( 518888 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:24AM (#7042471) Homepage
    You have to be using HP hardware. Fine, at least it demonstrates one avenue how to capitalise on the GPL :-)

    Having said that, I expect Big Blue to follow this up with a reversal on their current stance. Having poured in so much money into Linux, it would appear rather hypocritical not to.

    Thanks for the best news I've seen here in a while.
    • You have to be using HP hardware.

      [/me Cobbles together makeshift Sharpie-style [sharpie.com] HP OpenView logo for front of what is left of my case]

      Making party signs
      Marking toothbrushes
      Protecting assets from SCO
      Coloring Easter eggs
      Checking off items on checklist

  • Competitive Wager... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SwansonMarpalum ( 521840 ) <redina@ a l u m .rpi.edu> on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:24AM (#7042474) Homepage Journal

    It's entirely possible that HP is making a calculated gamble that they can steal IBM's potential Linux customers out from under them by offering indemnification, even if they aren't 100% sure they have a defensible position.

    Of course this brings up the point I was discussing with a friend of mine the other day: SCO's entire case for licensing binary versions of portions of the Linux kernel relies on forgiving them for ignorantly distributing these portions under the GPL. If such a courtesy is extended to SCO due to their ignorance, I doubt it would be denied to customers who were ignorantly violating SCO Group's so called intellectual property.

  • HP is pleased to inform the world that it is interested in investing in state-of-the-art .Net XML Web Services Technolgies, in partnership with Microsoft....:^) BTW, will they take back Bruce Perens?
  • Hopefully this will help show people that using Linux is not "dangerous". A big company like HP offering to defend any of their users sued by SCO? That sends a nice, big "frivolous lawsuit" message that suits will understand.

  • Thank goodness for competition (Score:3, Insightful)

    by squarooticus ( 5092 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:27AM (#7042489) Homepage
    The only reason HP is doing this is to attract more consumers to their own platform/hardware. And you know what? Who cares. The result is the same: indemnification for potential new users means SCO's FUD will have less of an effect on Linux adoption.

    Yet again, Ayn Rand is shown to be correct.
  • Maybe Carli signed her deal with the devil already ? That would explain why they can be so certain.

  • This is not the old HP.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:28AM (#7042507)
    How much you want to bet HP paid for a "SCO Linux License" so they could "legally" distribute linux.. notice that it HAS to run on HP hardware..

    There is still that "unknown" licensee of SCO's supposed linux license..

    • The article cleary states that HP did not license Linux from SCO.

      "We will provide full indemnity across the entire suite for any SCO-related action," said Martin Fink, HP's vice president of Linux. "If (customers) were to get sued by SCO, we would take over their defense and assume liability on their behalf."

      The indemnification program is limited to customers who receive a Linux distribution from HP, run it on HP hardware and have a support contract with HP. There's no additional charge for the protect

      • The article cleary states that HP did not license Linux from SCO.

        Yes, they did not license Linux. They licensed UNIX. SCO has one anonymous licensee. Guess who it is. HP is canny enough to realize they will lose goodwill if they are seen to be paying off SCO. So they made that deal a month or two ago and now that everyone's forgot about it they have come out with this offer.

  • The quicker this get to court the better. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gsdali ( 707124 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:29AM (#7042513)
    This decision will hopefully manoeuvre SCO into the courtroom (or into shutting up) and finally being forced to tell people what IP has been infringed, if any.
    • "This decision will hopefully manoeuvre SCO into the courtroom (or into shutting up) and finally being forced to tell people what IP has been infringed, if any."

      SCO isn't going to shut up. Not until they lose all their suits, get bought, go bankrupt, or the execs get arrested.

      SCO isn't being PAID to be quiet. MS and Sun didn't give them that dosh out of the "goodness of their hearts", OR because they feared any lawsuit.

      They paid them to yell and scream this shit until the last dollar is burnt.

  • You can keep your Detroit News (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Kalewa ( 561267 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:29AM (#7042514)
    I prefer to get my IT news from the Hindustan Times [hindustantimes.com]. Seriously though, it has a little more/different information that may be worth checking out.
  • Now I'll have to order that new ProLiant with Redhat, and transfer it over to the old Netserver I use to play with that we still have a warranty on ;)

  • This explains the drop in stock price (Score:5, Informative)

    by budGibson ( 18631 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:30AM (#7042525)
    SCO's stock price took a little 5% dive [yahoo.com] at the end of the day yesterday. This must have been the news.

    It only makes sense for systems integrators like HP and IBM to support Linux. They are providing a service in putting their systems together and want to catch as much of the value-add as possible. Paying a rent to Microsoft detracts from that.
  • That is huge of HP to step up to the plate, and at the same time, it is a great opportunity for HP to win customers :-D
  • I think the investors are starting to realise what they are up to (finally)... Why don't they just read slashdot?!? (Slightly tongue in cheek)

    http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX

  • PR stunt (Score:2, Insightful)

    by deltagreen ( 522610 )

    HP probably doesn't think SCO has got a chance at all, and see the possibility for getting some good PR (they certainly need it, as they are not doing too well in the computer market), both in the IT community and the public at large.

    Heck, if they are lucky, maybe even a few people will be lured into buying a HP computer. :)

  • Catch?? What catch? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by goldspider ( 445116 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:36AM (#7042568) Homepage
    "The catch is, you have to be running it on HP equipment ;)"

    Perhaps my coffee hasn't kicked in yet, but why would anyone believe that HP would assume liability for people who may not even be customers? If they're going to be doing your company this favor, shouldn't it at least prove it's an HP customer? That seems pretty reasonable to me!

  • Variety is the spice of life (Score:3, Funny)

    by GoofyBoy ( 44399 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:36AM (#7042569) Journal

    A /. article about SCO first thing in the morning? What a welcome change!

  • Let me be the first(?) to say (Score:3, Interesting)

    by eddy ( 18759 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:39AM (#7042589) Homepage Journal

    That this is stupid. Indemnification is a strawman. This is like arguing with it.

  • Good for HP but ....... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by holy_fire ( 709976 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:39AM (#7042591)
    This may a good move for HP to attract or steal customers but I'm not sure if this is good for Linux as a whole.

    First this may strengthen and not weaken SCO's claims ("If SCO is wrong as anybody claims why do they offer me indemnification?")

    Second I think that smaller companies have a harder sell now to bring Linux to customers since they don't have the deep pockets to give the same indemnifications for their customers.
    If you can only sell Linux with an indemnification program only the Big Boys can do it and that is not something I want to see.
    • If you can only sell Linux with an indemnification program only the Big Boys can do it and that is not something I want to see.

      But it's a temporary thing until this gets run out of court. I understand your point - I just think the increase in the community's confidence in Linux due to HP's stand overshadows any large-vendor affiliation side effect.

      Dammit. I broke the 3-syllable limit. I won't do it again, I promise.

    • Re:Good for HP but ....... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mostly a lurker ( 634878 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @08:25AM (#7042980)
      First this may strengthen and not weaken SCO's claims ("If SCO is wrong as anybody claims why do they offer me indemnification?")

      Sorry, but this is totally incomprehensible to me. How can HP saying "we are sufficiently confident of the weakness of SCO's case that we are willing to assume the supposed liability for free" possibly strengthen SCO's case?

  • HP is simply giving weight to something that is totally baseless. I would much rather that SCO not be offered any credence.
    • So they're giving weight to it by saying "SCO's claims are false. If we're wrong, we'll pay our customers' bills" ?

      SCO are being offered credence, by the markets at least. The current market price can only be justified by an assumption that SCO are going to make hundreds of millions of dollars either from IBM or from Linux users.

      This attacks that assumption. Nothing anyone can say carries as much weight as HP putting its money where its mouth is.

    • But that's exactly the point. Indemnification is absolutely the best way to demonstrate that you don't believe one word that SCO is saying.

      Slashdotters can rant all day long and it won't amount to anything. HP is putting its money where its mouth is; that's the real way to dis SCO.
  • zdnet, Didio, and the like, would be ranting that such a move was proof that scox has a strong case.

    IBM has offered to "protect their customers" (whatever that means). Didio has already pointed to that as evidence that scox has put IBM customers are in a positon where they need IBM's protection.
  • SCO is going on a tour to various US cities. How could you NOT register and attend this event, and ask them to explain their position in person?

    http://www.sco.com/partners/city_to_city/oct2003/ [sco.com]
  • These attempts at indemnification are not good. Why? Because they are some way down the road of taking an open source project and making it proprietary. Imagine Sun or HP had wanted to make money from Linux. They could have paid SCO to do what they did and then planned on making money from indemnifications.

    Note also that th indemnification is probably not worth all that much: do you really think you are the one they would come after? And how much could they realistically get for a piece of software yo
  • HP hardware? Why the hell would I want to run any OS on that? =P
  • Somebody finally did the math. Take the cost of defending companies against SCO's meritless lawsuits (A) and compare it to the amount of money to be gained from clueless PHBs who want some guarantees when they buy their Linux boxes (B). If A is greater than B, then indemnify your clients. Since it looks like nobody is paying the SCO license fee (except Sun and Microsoft), SCO's warchest for lawsuits will continue to dwindle, further reducing the cost of A.

    Sure, their execs are making a bundle, but they'r

  • Marketing via backlash (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Badgerman ( 19207 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @08:00AM (#7042746)
    This thought occurred to me:

    • SCO goes after Linux as a marketing/gain money tool.
    • They get hated.
    • Opposing SCO becomes popular.
    • SCO has just handed people a new marketing tool - oppose/stand up to SCO, get attention, customers, etc.


    Though in reflection, their egregeous approach to an unsubstantiated claim was bound to provoke a backlash. And it was bound to be something that people would take advantage of.

    Did SCO even see this? My guess, no. They're up their in their own little world.

  • You must look for the connection.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Famatra ( 669740 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @08:11AM (#7042848) Journal
    Hewlett Packard was a *member* and *speaker* of SCO Forum 2003:

    http://www.caldera.com/2003forum/agenda.html

    SCO and HP are friends. I would not be surprised if SCO made a deal with HP to let them off the hook in order for HP to do this little indemnification campaign to sell more of their computers.

    What can you do about this? Do not buy HP products, or products from people who deal with SCO.

  • Effect of Red Hat suit? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by amcguinn ( 549297 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @08:20AM (#7042942) Journal
    SCO's desperate pleading [groklaw.com] in the Red Hat case -- "don't make us defend our FUD in court, we never dreamed of suing Red Hat for merely distributing Linux, they have no reasonable apprehension of being sued." -- will have given HP huge confidence for this move. SCO as good as said "We will make no demands of anyone who has the resources, expertise, and incentive to prove in court that Linux does not infringe our copyrights. We merely intend to shake down those for whom it is cheaper to send us a few thousand dollars than take the effort and risk of opposing us".

    If SCO had the guts to take on HP, they would have had the guts to take on Red Hat. In actively running away from Red Hat they have invited this.

  • I know what the word means, but I don't know what SUN, HP, and Microsoft are really offering when they claim to indemnify customers. Indemnify against what? Any legal/settlement costs for any frivilous lawsuit that may arise from the customer's use of the product? I doubt it.

    So what exactly are they offering? Can somebody post the fine print?
  • The catch is, you have to be running it on HP equipment ;)

    Do you HONESTLY expect them to cover your butt if you build your own systems and download linux from redhat for free? THAT is why people say OS people are commies. You expect someone to give you something for nothing.

    Then other posts on here staying oh its just a marketing ploy by HP. And you guys are the EXACT SAME people who a week ago were saying "why don't these companies protect us from lawsuits???"

    I say bravo HP! I build my own system
  • Latest press release from SCO [yahoo.com] does an amazing job at spinning this HP announcement their way. Unbelieveable how fast they can produce this crap.

    HP's actions this morning reaffirm the fact that enterprise end users running Linux are exposed to legal risks. Rather than deny the existence of substantial structural problems with Linux as many Open Source leaders have done, HP is acknowledging that issues exist and is attempting to be responsive to its customers' request for relief. HP's actions are driving t

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close