was just reading an article at newsfactorand im curious as to wtf they are talking about, well more specifically "indemnification "
i have always thought that linux is free and you dont need to wory about Intelectually property rights when using it....

DiDio cited a study showing that while Linux is touted by its backers as a low-cost alternative to the Windows world, a majority of businesses using the open-source software spend from $100,000 to $1 million on indemnification protection. Linux vendors HP and Novell Latest News about Novell, for example, offer limited indemnification to their customers.

so what the hell that on about?

in·dem·ni·ty
1. Security against damage, loss, or injury.
2. A legal exemption from liability for damages.
3. Compensation for damage, loss, or injury suffered. See Synonyms at reparation.

dictionary.com rulez k ?

Kinda like this;

SCO: Hey, Company-X-Using-Linux.
CXL: Hey, SCO - Where do you want to go today?
SCO: Supreme Court, to sue your ass for using a free O/S that we claim to have proprietory code in when really we just stalled for months and months to scare companies like you into coughing up.
CXL: well.. I'll start using micros.. oh wait, I'll pay too.

Correct me if I'm wrong.


last edited by teq at 22:22:31 28/Jun/05

I think they're talking more about using portions of code in comercial applications. Usually you'll see some kind of "this product & portions of it are available free for home/personal use and in no way may be used for comercial applications. Where comercial applications are applied you must pay us uber ammounts of money" type things on some freeware programs (I've noticed it mainly in windows but you'd probably find that crap in lunix too). So I'm guessing that while free for us to use at home businesses that rely on these portions of code to make money must pay a fee to the copyright holder.

I'm not going to be an OCAU f***** and say that I do anal so I'll just say I AM NOT A LAWYER. <-- only makes sense if you're an ocau junkie.

IAAAL (I am almost a lawyer :), and I think teq has it just about right and I think whoop is wrong, sorry mate.

The easiest way I can think to explain this is to use an analogy with insurance. If someone indemnifies you, they take responsibility for all losses that arise over a certain thing. So, say you have comprehensive insurance for your car, and you have a smash and also happen to injure someone in the other car. If the insurance company agrees to your claim, they pay for all of the repairs. If the person in the other car sues you for their injuries, the insurancy company looks after all of that too, you don't worry about it, they run the court case for you because they have indemnified you.

The same thing can apply to intellectual property. If somebody (like SCO) claims that code they own has been incorporated into some product (like Linux), then they can theoretically sue not only those who supposedly incorporated the infringing code, but those who are using it as well. This can be a problem especially for risk averse big corporates who want to roll out Linux by the thousands because they are exposed to the risk of being dragged into a messy court case, and worse, they could lose!

So software vendors are in the habit of indemnifying their customers from any third party IP claims to placate these fears. If the end user were ever sued for the infringement, the software vendor would step in and defend the claim on their behalf, and wear the losses, whatever they are. It is just another form of insurance really. The problem with Linux of course is that those who wrote the code don't make any money from it, but now big vendors of Linux such as IBM (I think) are indemnifying people who buy Linux to allay fears that lunatics such as SCO will come after the hapless end users.

That is it in a nutshell! I take responsibility for any errors or inaccuracies, but since I am due to be on a plane in about 7 hours and I haven't started packing, I just don't care :-).

Lyco, your explanation was great except for one thing. i can't find the thread in question (3 guesses why... but ever since someone explained a legal situation which used the word "gaybar" so eloquently, one of the rules states that all qgl legal explanations must use the word "gaybar". trog mustn't have written it up yet.

last edited by z0r at 03:32:18 01/Jul/05

linux violates a couple of hundred software patents. Most of those are held by companys that allow Linux to utilise them, but not all of them.

So, while linux may be currently free, give software patents a few years to cover most concepts available to programming and it could just be f***ed.

For an example on how f***ed Software Patents can be, someone is trying to patent Progress Bars (successful patent claim in europe, they are just waiting for the regulations to come though to make it enforceable).

that's bulls***. something as old and as widespread and as...necessary as progress bars shouldn't be patentable.
gaybars, however...