HP to indemnify customers from Linux legal claims

The Detroit News ^ | 09/24/03 | Matthew Fordahl

[Salo]

SAN JOSE, Calif. -- Clearing a legal cloud around the Linux operating system, computer maker Hewlett-Packard Co. will announce Wednesday it will protect its customers from the SCO Group Inc.'s intellectual property claims if the software is running on HP equipment.

[Salo]

Grist. Mill.

[Salo]

Interested parties.

[Salo]

Pinging. Dr. Penguin.

[pikachu]

Maybe they can sue SCO for 'mental cruelty' on behalf of all the Linux users. I'd like to Darl and the SCO gang hoisted on their own pitard.

[Salo]

This may be the first crack in SCO's damn(ation): HP evidently thinks SCO has no chance of winning and is putting its money where its mouth is.

[shadowman99]

Sounds like HP doesn't think much of SCO's claims.

SCO has yet to sue anyone other that IBM (over a contract dispute). But SCO hasn't sued any Linux end users yet. And they won't. It would be suicide.

Of course they may have alread done that when they sued IBM. Darl was heard to quote Socrates' famous words - "I drank WHAT?"

[Steely Glint]

Woot, HP sticks it to SCO!

SCO deserves anything bad that ever happens to it.

[Golden Eagle]

SCO will be happy to hear this, all they claim to have originally wanted is for is for the Linux vendors to pay for fair use of Unix code that may be in Linux.

Many Linux proponents will say this is a victory for Linux, but actually it puts HP more into the SCO/Sun camp than before. You may recall Sun has already offered this 'protection' for certain customers, and now HP follows suit. From SCO's perspective, this is exactly what they want, the big companies to acknowledge their claims are likely legitimate, and to be willing to pay SCO for installed copies out there.

However since IBM is the main contributor to Linux development, and their AIX license has (according to SCO) apparently been revoked for improper contributions, they may be the one left without a seat when the music stops playing.

[Salo]

Or, HP looked into it and said "SCO is pissing in the wind, let's buy us some free Good Publicity and indemnify our customers" knowing they will not be paying a cent.

And my AIX is working fine. :-)

[rdb3]

The Penguin Ping.

Wanna be Penguified? Just holla!

Got root?

[msgt]

Where can I get some of whatever it is you're smoking?

[Golden Eagle]

Very important caveat to this:

"Customers will be indemnified on systems that are purchased after Oct. 1, Fink said."

http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/030924/tech_hewlettpackard_linux_2.html

Wonder how much the price on their new Linux systems will be compared to their older models...my guess is enough to pay that money back to SCO if/when it's necessary.

[Salo]

HP says:

HP says it isn't in cahoots with SCO on 'IP indemnification program'

Wednesday September 24, 2003 - [ 05:08 PM GMT ]
Topic - Patents and Trademarks

- By Robin 'Roblimo' Miller -
If you obtain Linux through HP, even if it's on one of its low-cost PCs that ship with 'Mandrake light,' HP will indemnify you against any suits SCO might file against you -- if SCO decides you are violating its IP rights by running Linux without a license from them. SCO claims HP is validating its claim that it owns at least some Linux code by doing this. HP's boss Linux guy, Martin Fink, says this isn't so. And there's a catch to the indemnification offer: You aren't allowed to freely modify your source code and still be covered by HP's warm & fuzzy legal security blanket.

Fink claims "only one in 10,000" users ever modify source code, and that if you get your binaries -- for any distribution -- through HP and use it on HP hardware, you're covered. If you buy a new HP unit that comes with Linux and install that same version of Linux on that old HP laptop you have in the shed, you're still covered. (Of course, if you install it on your Toshiba laptop, you're not.)
During a conference call at noon today, Fink said they'd check modifications "on a case by case basis." I specifically asked him about removing the OpenOffice.org splash screen, a fairly typical modification, and he was unable or unwilling to tell me whether this simple change in two lines of code would or would not remove indemnification, and he did not tell me where or how to find out.

A few moments later, respected tech journalist (and NewsForge contributing writer) Steven J. Vaughn-Nichols asked if security patches would void the indemnification. Fink said, "If you take them from an unknown third party" it's a case-by-case thing, but if you get your patches as binaries from a distribution publisher that works with HP, you're okay.

GPL or indemnification?

It seems that in HP-land, you can choose either to exercise your right to change your GPL-given right to change your Linux source code or be protected from SCO by HP's broad legal shoulders, but not necessarily both. In a way, you can see HP's point here. If they provided legal protection against SCO to every modified Linux install on every HP machine, someone would no doubt intentionally add some known SCO-owned code just to force the issue and cause grief for HP (and, of course, for SCO).

But, noted by an analyst on the call, HP doesn't indemnify third-party proprietary software they sell or resell at all. Fink said that with proprietary software, the publisher usually provides that indemnity. The conversation went on; the analyst pointed out that many proprietary software vendors don't indemnify their customers. Fink responded that yes, this is a unique situation.

'We aren't SCO's Linux business partner'

Fink used the phrase "business partner" about SCO. Asked how this should be interpreted, he said, "SCO and HP had a long history where we sold their OpenUnix on HP Proliant servers." When I asked if anyone was still buying OpenUnix though HP, he hedged with a small laugh. "I don't track those numbers," he said. He also pointed out that SCO and HP have no Linux-based business partnership.

Fink was asked what he thought about SCO's allegation in a press release sent out earlier today (full text at the end of this article) that said, "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 the Linux industry towards a licensing program. In other words, Linux is not free."

He called SCO's words "an interesting spin" and carefully pointed out that HP has no official position on the validity of SCO's claims. "That's up to the courts to decide," he said.

He said, "HP's thinking was the indemnification was better than countersuits and other possible measures. These are big, complex issues, and it takes time to work through them all."

Fink used several marketing-type phrases about how SCO-proofing HP's Linux customers is, "differentiating ourselves from the market," and at one point asked the very valid question, "Where's our competitors?" Obviously, IT buyers (in HP's opinion) are supposed to want to "work with a vendor who stands behind their customers."

But there's yet another catch: Right now now, HP is only indemnifying their Linux- using customers against Linux-based IP suits from SCO. If another company decides that they, like SCO, own some or all Linux IP, you are on your own.

[Golden Eagle]

Good info, thanks. Hardly a cut and dried offer of protection.

[Dominic Harr]

SCO's latest press release says,

HP's Actions Support SCO's Position That Linux is not Free

Geez -- there's a line (often crossed by Golden Eagle) where spinning an obvious loss to claim victory just makes you look stupid.

[TechJunkYard]

About worthless if you ask me.

But then again, HP wouldn't be doing this if they thought there was any merit to $CO's claims. It's a risk-free PR move.

[Dominic Harr]

If you were serious here, and not just a paid pumper, you'd applaud this, based on your past position.

Any other reaction will really undermine you even more.

[Salo]

Their stock price was starting to slide. :-)

[Coral Snake]

How come I didn't receive the penguin ping for this one. If I was removed for that article I wrote before labor day. I have said several times that I repudiated it. I would like to be reinstated if it is possible.

[TechJunkYard]

.. their AIX license has (according to SCO) apparently been revoked for improper contributions..

Heh... yeah, sure it was.