[NCLUG] sco stock tanked today ...

[jbass at dmsd.com]

Both reasons are extremely poor, and the excuses are substantially
selfserving.

Either IBM knows that it's actions are 110% correct and there is absolutely
no liability (in which case the indemnification won't cost a dime), or it
knows that it's customers are at risk for the binaries it continues to ship
(in which case the indemnification is a real cost added to any judgements).

Souce code modification is completely another issue.

HP's actions are anything but CYA - they are outright correct for a vendor
shipping code that may place the customer at risk.

John Bass

Doug Holland <meldroc at frii.com> writes:
> On Sat 27 Sep 2003 6:00 am, jbass at dmsd.com wrote:
> > bill ehlert <ehlert_b at yahoo.com> writes
> >
> > > See more about the countersuit:
> > > http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/030926/1148000629_1.html
> >
> > Be sure to read the part about IBM unwilling to indemnify its
> > Linux customers running IBM binaries, at least HP is.

> IBM declined to offer indemnification for its customers for a couple reasons.

> 1.  Indemnification, while sounding warm and fuzzy, offers very little real 
> legal protection.  HP's indemnification will only pay for the cost of the 
> Linux software purchased from HP.  Extra damages that SCO hypothetically 
> would win against that customer would not be covered.

> 2.  HP requires that customers must not modify their Linux source code in 
> order to be covered.  This is a CYA move ensuring that a customer doesn't put 
> in infringing code, get sued, then stick the damages on HP.  IBM believes 
> that limits the fundamental freedom to modify code that Open Source is about, 
> so it won't straitjacket its customers.