He also pointed out that OSRM is not selling insurance, but rather "certifying and indemnifying our work around the kernel and with these clients to provide them an indemnification that we as OSRM have an insurance policy behind us that provides the financial wherewithal to offer that indemnification."
I'm going to give Mr Sinclair some leeway because he's speaking off the cuff, but this sentence is grammatical gibberish, and he should refrain from using the word "indemnify" until he learns what it means.
First of all, the direct object of "indemnify" cannot be work or a fact. Secondly, indemnity is practically a synonym of insurance.
You indemnify a person, and it means you assume a risk that would otherwise be his. OSRM is apparently, in exchange for money, indemnifying Linux users against legal costs they might incur based on their use of Linux. I.e. selling insurance.
Sinclair mentions an insurance policy behind OSRM. I assume that's a reinsurance policy, because unless OSRM has a whole lot of assets, its insurance policies wouldn't be worth much without it; if one client has to defend its use of Linux, all of them do.
So the real story here is who's insuring OSRM, and why do they think it's a good risk?
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds