Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
MS and Indemnification (Groklaw)
Groklaw has taken a detailed look at Microsoft's indemnification offer. "Refund the full amount they paid for the software? How can you resist a generous offer like that? Maybe we need to look at the fine print here."
(Log in to post comments)
MS and Indemnification (Groklaw) Posted Nov 12, 2004 9:48 UTC (Fri) by jonth (subscriber, #4008) [Link] Hmmm - surely this is quite a generous offer - as we like to point out endlessly M$ software is ridiculously expensive. It also opens up the opportunity for Debian to match the offer...
J
MS and Indemnification (Groklaw) Posted Nov 12, 2004 10:38 UTC (Fri) by libra (guest, #2515) [Link] The point Microsoft seems to intentionally misunderstand is that people do not chose OSS solutions just because of money, but mostly because it fits better to their job.Quality and flexibility is the real strength of OSS. The low price is just a way to be sure that those advantages are affordables.
MS and Indemnification (Groklaw) Posted Nov 12, 2004 13:06 UTC (Fri) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] The point Microsoft seems to intentionally misunderstand is that people do not chose OSS solutions just because of money, but mostly because it fits better to their job. Quality and flexibility is the real strength of OSS. The low price is just a way to be sure that those advantages are affordables. Indeed, there are a number of people who choose OSS solutions because of the freedoms involved... although there are also a number of people in the OSS community who are embarassed about that and about people who say that, and would like to deny that that is a factor since it sounds so wishy washy and (somehow) communist. -Rob
MS and Indemnification (Groklaw) Posted Nov 12, 2004 15:52 UTC (Fri) by danielpf (subscriber, #4723) [Link] Freedom access to source code has nothing to do with ideology, but with very practical advantages that change considerably the efficiency of computer use.
We have experieced this fact when setting up a high performance computing cluster where every aspects of it may be tuned thanks to open source software.
In this cluster a single InfiniBand network driver was closed source, which brought a lot of limitations and problems not only because the closed source driver was buggy, so we had to rely on the vendor to get a working version (which took months), but because the driver compatible kernel versions were too old and not supporting recent SCSI hardware. Fortunately now open source InfiniBand drivers become available, and the situation improves.
This example shows that access to source code with a free license provides considerable advantage which has little to do with cost, or, rather this example shows all the disadcantage of closed source software. A whole HPC cluster may be working inefficiently depending on a single closed source driver.
Freedom Posted Nov 12, 2004 17:58 UTC (Fri) by jamienk (subscriber, #1144) [Link] >>Freedom access to source code has nothing to do with ideology, but with very practical advantages that change considerably the efficiency of computer use.
The Founding Fathers of the US advocated Freedom because
* Those who stop freedom often do it to excercise and consolodate their power, not for any good "reason"
* In a marketplace of ideas, good ideas often gain popularity, and good thinkers are spurred by others' open discourse
* There might be bad things going on today that we don't perceive of as bad just because we are used to it (slavery, womens' vote); Freedom allows unpopular advocates to emerge and become popular
These are all very practical advantages of Freedom. They all also apply to Free software.
The "ideological" argument for freedom, I suppose, would be the Platonic/Christian idea that each individual has a soul and is "equal" in God's eye and thus has individual responsibilities and freedoms. This too may apply to Free software, but is rarely argued.
RMS, when he uses the word moral, seems to me to be advocating the social values of sharing and cooperating. He is concerned that propritary software acts to inhibit this way of interacting. In a way, this seems less an argument for Freedom, and more an advocacy for a way of living.
MS and Indemnification (Groklaw) Posted Nov 15, 2004 9:18 UTC (Mon) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link] You hear that kinda often, but it's one of those things that make less sense the more you think about it.There's nothing communistic about wanting freedom. Indeed lots of Americans would say freedom is one of the most fundamental things worth figthing for, and they won't feel particularily communist while saying it... There's also nothing communist about wanting a market place on a level playing-field with lots of healthy competition. Infact that is quite the oposite, Adam Smith would agree to that a lot more readily than Marx would. If you go with MS you have one supplier to choose from. One company can fix (or not) the problems you experience. One company can provide (or not) real tech-support (the sort where you get to speak with someone who can look into what is *actually* going wrong in your software, not the sort that consists of handholding.) One company can dictate it all. If you go with a Linux (or Free Sofware in general) solution then you have multiple suppliers to choose from for every bit of your infrastructure. You can go to IBM and get help, real help, of the sort where "This is ok, but program X needs to sort by order-size rather than by date" can actually be fixed when you need it, rather than "thank you for your feedback, we'll consider that for our next version, due out in 18 months." And if you don't like the answer you get from IBM, there's a dozen larger and hundreds of smaller firms you can turn to with the same request. They'll have to *compete* for your bussiness. They'll have to make you actually *competitive* offers where the services they bring stand in a fair relation to the price they demand. What a UNAMERICAN COMMUNIST concept !
MS and Indemnification (Groklaw) Posted Nov 12, 2004 15:28 UTC (Fri) by Ken (guest, #14505) [Link] Actually, the real point is that the indemnification is useless. They are saying if someone sues you for 50 million they will refund your 100k purchase of software. This is a PR war with no substance.
MS and Indemnification (Groklaw) Posted Nov 12, 2004 15:35 UTC (Fri) by Ken (guest, #14505) [Link] Darn, can't edit. I understated the complexity of this by several orders of magnitude. Please go read the article before drawing conclusions.
MS and Indemnification (Groklaw) Posted Nov 12, 2004 15:58 UTC (Fri) by chel (guest, #11544) [Link] In the SCO case we see SCO needs to have access to IBM's code base, all versions of the last 25 years, to be conclusive about copyright infringment.If I read the Groklaw analysis of the MS indemnification, I see there is no real indemnification at all. Just consider the case where you use MS software that infinges IP rights of others and have sold about 1 million cell phones containing this software. MS will deliver you a version without infringment and funcionality, or will pay you back what you have paid them. I don't see how this will help you against external claims. Please remember SCO did sue end-users and did receive financial help for that from MS.
MS and Indemnification (Groklaw) Posted Nov 12, 2004 17:05 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] Use of Linux was completely incidental to SCO's lawsuits. SCO sued people for various things related to their contracts with SCO, not for using Linux. Of course, they claimed in the press that Linux was somehow related, but Linux use wasn't a claim in the court filings.
The only company whose end users have gotten sued over the company's IP infringement is still Microsoft (who did, in fact, take over the case and, IIRC, end up licensing the IP involved).
MS and Indemnification (Groklaw) Posted Nov 12, 2004 17:26 UTC (Fri) by cpm (subscriber, #3554) [Link] I must be living in an alternate universe, because it seems to me, thatI recall back in March of this year, SCO filed suites against (end users) Autozone and Daimler Chrysler BECAUSE of alledged copyright violation by those companies in their use of Linux.
So, I don't think "The only company whose end users have gotten sued over the company's IP infringement is still Microsoft" at all.
MS and Indemnification (Groklaw) Posted Nov 12, 2004 18:15 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] The alledged copyright violation was of SCO's shared libraries, which the companies had gotten as SCO customers, and which they were alledgedly using with Linux (but, of course, were not). The cases did not alledge that the Linux suppliers used by either Autozone or DC were infringing anything in what they supplied. End users have been sued over their own alledged copyright violation while using products from many companies, but the only case in which the legal liability has come from a supplier is still Microsoft's.
MS and Indemnification (Groklaw) Posted Nov 12, 2004 19:50 UTC (Fri) by cpm (subscriber, #3554) [Link] Thanks for that clarification.
MS and Indemnification (Groklaw) Posted Nov 12, 2004 17:13 UTC (Fri) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link] The indemnification excludes embedded devices such as cell phones.
It is a matter of trust Posted Nov 13, 2004 1:00 UTC (Sat) by lakeland (subscriber, #1157) [Link] PJ on Groklaw finds many flaws in the wording of the MS contract, wherethe MS lawyers could squeeze out of offering anything if they felt that way inclined. OTOH, the contract is written in such a way as to strongly imply they will not pull out of offering you the indemnification, and you can bet there would be a huge backlash if they ever did. It all comes down to how much you trust Microsoft; if you trust they will act reasonably, then this contract is good, and if you don't, then it isn't worth the paper it is written on. Have a look at your insurance contract sometime and I think you'll find very similar terms. Similarly, many of the laws being passed now have insanely broad reaches along with promises not to use them to their full extent. Basically, the insurance company (and the police) are being trusted to be reasonable. PJ isn't trusting MS to be reasonable and so finding numerous flaws in their contract.
It is a matter of trust Posted Nov 15, 2004 8:16 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Your insurance policy stipulates amputation of broken limbs? ;-)
|
|||||||||||