[CLUE-Talk] HP to Protect Customers from Linux Claims

[Dennis J Perkins]

> On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 10:46:35AM -0600, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 10:20, Kirk Rafferty wrote:
> > > Frankly, I'm surprised IBM didn't protect their customers from the outset.
> > > It would have demonstrated that IBM are not only serious about Linux, but
> > > would have also discouraged SCO from suing end-users willy-nilly.  IBM
> > > may have even landed some hardware and/or support deals from the deal.
> > 
> > You're kidding, right? This whole imdemnification thing is massive FUD. 
> 
> No, I'm not kidding at all.  Whether we like it or not, the issue
> of indemnification has gained traction.  If enough customers want
> indemnification, well then, that's what a free market is all about.
> 
> If IBM "had taken the bait" early on, much of the (hot) air in SCO's sails
> would have evaporated.  IBM could say "we're so confident that we're right,
> we'll indemnify our customers."  Then the whole "GPL is bad for business
> because nobody will protect you" argument would have never come up.
> 
> And if IBM are covering legal costs for 1,500 customers, that's 1,500
> customers that sure are happy they chose IBM.  And when SCO loses,
> that's 1,500 countersuits, or however the lawyers want to handle it.
> In the end, other companies know not to fsck with IBM or their customers,
> and IBM can show potential customers the "value add" you get with IBM.
> 
> > > This might be the time for Red Hat to jump into the fray, and indemnify
> > > anyone running Red Hat Enterprise with a current RHN contract.  It would
> > > be a great reason for anyone running the "hobbyist" version in a 
production
> > > environment to upgrade.
> > 
> > Yeah, I'm sure RH has the spare bucks sitting around to deal with the
> > influx of lawsuits. 
> 
> I don't know the answer to that.  Certainly indemnifying customers is a
> liability, and perhaps it's the potential costs that keep Red Hat from
> doing it.  My point is that Red Hat, if they were in a position to do
> it, would gain a lot of good will (and RHN subscriptions) if they were
> to indemnify RH Enterprise customers.
> 
> Whether indemnification is FUD or not isn't the real question.  It may
> well be, but it needs to be addressed.  If enough customers feel they need
> indemnification, then the company that can provide it stands to make money.
> They also incur some risk, but then that's what business is all about.
> 
> -k

Define indemnity.  Will a court and judge agree with your definition of 
indemnity or agree with the customer who is suing you over it?
  What does offering indemnity do to your insurance?  I think HP is foolish to 
have made this move.  For that matter, can you offer indemnity for something 
you don't produce?  Aren't they simply installing another company's product?

I think I read that the indemnity only applies if you don't modify any 
programs.  Does recompiling the kernel invalidate the indemnity?  Or does that 
only apply to the source?