OSRM Certifies Linux Kernel Free of Copyright Infringement

April 19 2004

IANAL(or even a paralegal!), but this makes no sense to
me.

If they have certified it, then why the need for legal
protection? Innocent until proven guilty, right? And
certification should make you MORE innocent, if such a
thing were possible (it's not, so the whole thing is
pointless anyway, but..)

What's the point in making free software that poor
communities can use to educate their kids, if they then
have to go pay for legal insurance just to use it safely?
What kind of a contribution to humanity also consitutes a
threat?

We should nip this in the bud by ignoring it, and get on
with good, free, ethical code :)

10:25 AM EDT

by PJ

April 19 2004

First, noncommercial users don't need this. Read the press release. Second,
a number of versions of UNIX were checked. Two versions of the kernel.

10:29 AM EDT

Did SCO/MS Win?

April 19 2004

Maybe someone can explain to me how this doesn't help MS/SCO FUD by adding to
Linux's TCO with a likely unnecessary cost?

Sure, it's not $699 per CPU but it seems like they've scored a point against us
by increasing the cost of Linux, even if it's only marginal and only affects
developers. Instead of paying through the backside, we're paying through the
nose. Different orifice, same result.

Somehow, I don't think that many developers (or their bosses) who are
knowledgeable about Linux (or read GrokLaw) will get this since they know
there's no Unix in our Linux.

I guess time will tell.

11:11 AM EDT

SCO/MS Loses

April 19 2004

I believe this insurance/coverage is primarily targeted at medium to large
businesses which are attractive targets for frivolous lawsuits from the likes of
SCO.

This coverage provides these businesses a very cheap way to mitigate the risk of
being sued by SCO. Whether the suits would ultimately fail or not (of course
they would) is not the point--defending a frivolous lawsuit could cost these
businesses a lot of time and money.

12:01 PM EDT

SCO/MS Loses

by Daniel Egger

April 20 2004

Exactly. Generally, only companies with "deep pockets" need to worry
about
these kinds of nuisance suits -- so small companies and individual users
have no need for our services. On the other hand, kernel developers,
although they have minimal riak of being sued, can benefit from expert
information about how to maximize the strength of their ownerdhip and how
to fight back if anyone tries to denigrate their work.

-Daniel Egger

12:47 AM EDT

OSRM Certifies Linux Kernel Free of Copyright Infringement

April 19 2004

Oh well here it is...

Question that should be asked then answered; what power
does OSRM have that it "certifies" the Linux kernel at all ?. Does this "OSRM
certification" supersede the validity of of the kernels within major disto
developments or the OSDL ?.
Must have had to start this now because soon the
threat of SCO will be lost. The SCO case seems to have been the only reason for
this OSRM creation. When this SCO vs IBM case is over, what will this become ?.
Yes, OSRM legal defense center to, IMHO damage linux and opensource, and have
the use and development of "FOSS" (linux too) come down to a membership. To act
out of fear can be a bad thing !.

For any developer, or someone just offers
coding support buys into this; is in for problems IMHO. Maybe its time to think
about the future, and look at moving along away from linux, and find true
"opensource" elsewhere if OSRM is going to become the "power".

11:17 AM EDT

OSRM Certifies Linux Kernel Free of Copyright Infringement

by Daniel Egger

April 20 2004

SCO brought my attention to the lawsuit-vulnerability problem but the
problem will still be there long after SCO goes away.

Linus Torvalds, Bruce Perens, Jeremy Allison are all on record that patent
litigation is the biggest risk now facing Linux. OSRM is not a
"power," but a
startup, marshalling our resources and the work of volunteers fromt he
community to develop suffcient "freedom to operate" documentation
around
core kernel functions to be able to insure against patent claims as well. We
have a sense of urgency, but not because of SCO!

-Daniel

12:23 AM EDT

PJ, don't you think you have a conflict of interests?

April 19 2004

You work for OSRM now. It's good that you got that job, I hope it's more money
for you.

However, I think that the nature of OSRM's business could be a problem for the
integrity of Groklaw.

12:38 PM EDT

OSRM Certifies Linux Kernel Free of Copyright Infringement

April 19 2004

The chance of your house being leveled by a tornado is quite low. Even here
where i live in North Texas. You can look at a neighborhood after a tornado has
ripped through it and see two or three houses out of several dozen destroyed.
Tornados also often only effectively damage small areas. That is, they don't
measure damage in dozens of miles, but singular miles (this tornado's path was
.64 miles long, and did X dollars in damage). People buy tornado insurance on
the off change that their house might be hit. However, many people do not buy
tornado (severe weather / act of god) insurance because the risks are so low.
It is not required by law to have said insurance. It would be illogical to do
so.

I don't see this isurance as being much different from this form of insurance.

02:31 PM EDT

I don't follow any one blindly

by PJ

April 19 2004

I feel your pain, but the cause of the pain is the legal system. Make sure you

identify the problem, when judging efforts to fix it. You should know me well
enough by now to know I believe this is helpful, or I wouldn't be doing it.

05:14 PM EDT

I don't follow any one blindly

by Daniel Egger

April 20 2004

If the US legal system could be fixed to: 1) reduce the typical cost of
defending against frivolous IP claims to near-zero (instead of what is now a
median of $3 million for a patent lawsuit); and 2) provide a statutory
"safe
harbour" for end-users who did not write the code themselves and acted in

good faith -- then OSRM would not be necessary. That would be a better
world than the one we live in now.
-Daniel Egger

12:54 AM EDT

Conflict of interest? Some thoughts

by Dan Lewis

April 19 2004

I don't see how PJ can have a conflict of interest when she very clearly states her advocacy position. This isn't a traditional front-page news source with presumptive objectivity and responsibility for only the bare facts.

I think people wander into Groklaw and assume that because the reporting is comprehensive and the love of the details is evident, they must be reading the AP newswire. Then they hear about the site-runner's foray into related commercial enterprises, and think Walter Cronkite is taking money from Coca-Cola.

The commitment of Groklaw to document-based reporting need not change whether or not PJ is using the results of that research to conduct legal-risk assessments for FOSS issues, or even using those assessments to set insurance rates.

PJ's position is that SCO, and companies like SCO who wish to challenge Linux and the GPL in court, don't have a legal leg to stand on. If anything, her advocacy position is at odds with her insurance position. If she made SCO sound more dangerous than it actually is (that would be misusing her advocacy, perhaps), more developers would be inclined to buy insurance from her.

But so far, that hasn't been happening, and Groklaw regulars wouldn't expect it to. Give PJ some credit, and let her wear both hats, as part of her ongoing commitment to support the FOSS community.

03:29 PM EDT

Initial feeling was one of disgust...

April 19 2004

But after thinking things over for a while, that has mellowed somewhat to just
be "disappointment"

There is no need for this offering at all and the fact that OSRM is associated
with it has made me do a double-take on that organisation.

We've been saying for months that there is no basis to SCO's claims, and now
here we are offering insurance to cover your liability ?

I can just hear Darl/Laura now...

"Yep, even the people at Groklaw accept that there is infringing code. PJ
is a Director for the OSRM and they have just announced a new insurance scheme
to cover your legal expenses if you use illegally copied code in Linux. Those
guys are the experts in the field, and if they are offering insurance then it's
pretty clear that they feel there is a need for it."

If businesses want insurance, then they can go with HP/IBM/Novell/Red Hat to get
it, they don't need the OSRM.

I just don't see the logic to this announcement at all.

03:51 PM EDT

Initial feeling was one of disgust...

by PM

April 19 2004

"I just don't see the logic to this announcement at all."

You are quite right about a lack of logic - but a lot of business dynamics
function on all sorts of things as well as logic. OSRM is a business that
'matches' different risk attitudes to Linux. The OSRM stakeholders are so sure
that Linux does not infringe SCO's or others copyrights they are staking money
on it. There are businesses that would like to use Linux but do have nagging
fears about the risk of using Linux. Hence they are willing to purchase
indemnity from OSRM to keep their Boards' risk management committees happy.

It is a win-win for all:
- Client companies will feel happier about using Linux
- The promoters will make money for jam (and good for them - I just hope that PJ
is suitably rewarded and can visit a BMW showroom soon if she is so inclined)
- It provides an additional valuable facet to the Linux community by providing
further confidence in Linux and strengthening Linux against attacks from the
likes of SCO.

04:30 PM EDT

Initial feeling was one of disgust...

by Daniel Egger

April 20 2004

Thanks for your insightful analysis of what risk-shifting is all about. No one
has to buy this kind of insurance if they agree with our own position that the
risks are minor, and they are willing to assume the costs of their own legal
defense if they have the bad luck to get sued. And of course we will make
sure PJ gets her BMW.

-Daniel Egger

01:02 AM EDT

Big Time Conflict of interest issue

April 20 2004

Suppose I don't buy this insurance. But Son of SCO sues me.

Will Groklaw support me? Will the matter see the light of day?

For example, I know that I can make Groklaw posts from one internet session,
which I can see from any later session on that machine. But I am pretty certain
that I have been labelled a troll for being critical of Groklaw and PJ in the
past, although I am very much concerned to advance Linux and FOSS in general. If
I go to another location, I can't see my original posts. [I am now at another
location].

So dealing with me as though I were a troll has resulted in Groklaw cutting me
out of participation in the community. I also cuts me out from posting any
threat I may receive.

What if PJ also decides that there is no money for the OSRM issue in doing
anything about my case? Or that Groklaw resources are best devoted to minimizing
the losses to OSRM? Obviously as an accused troll, I can hang as far as Groklaw
is concerned. And OSRM's best interests will actually be well served to have me
sued as a non-customer.

Groklaw has carved out a constituency in the FOSS world, which has some faults,
but these were redeemable. It may be inadvertent, but PJ has now annexed this
territory for the commercial benefit of ONE company, the one she works for. I
can only echo the concerns of other some other posters, and fully expect to be
called a troll. But being called a troll in this instance will say more about
the caller than it does about me.

Groklaw should now become a sub site of OSRM and not take the ibiblio hosting
any longer. This having happened, Groklaw could better speak for the community
as an acknowledged and respected part of OSRM, rather than from a compromised
position of independence or of speaking on behalf of the community as a whole.

Oh yes, I am still an Anonymous. Now this OSRM plug has happened, I am not going
to become a named contributor either. Judge what I have to say, on the basis of
the point I make, not on whether I am a registered user.

05:37 AM EDT

Open-source SW, open-source legal research

by PJ

April 20 2004

OSRM has its own site. Groklaw labor had nothing to do with the work done for OSRM.

I don't own OSRM. I am paid to do research for them. Groklaw is entirely my own and editorially independent. So there is absolutely no reason for them to host it.

I have always done side paid work from the first day Groklaw went online. It's really nobody's business what I do for a living. I disclaim because I want to in this case, because there is a synergy, and I wanted to be open with my readers, as always.

If Groklaw readers wish to pay me enough for reading Groklaw that I don't need to do outside work, I'd be happy to do only Groklaw. But that is not the case. Therefore, my choices on what I do to pay my bills is my own decision to make. Actually, I'd do the work for OSRM for free. In fact I offered to do so.

I believe OSRM has found a way to preserve the freedom to modify the code. It's a checkmate, IMO, to all the DiDiotic FUD about indemnification, first that we didn't have it and then that it added hugely to the expense of running GNU/Linux (as in her latest study) and that it limits Linux because you can't modify code without losing your indemnification. She can never accurately say that again. We have shut her mouth, and I'm proud to have had a part.

This offering isn't for end users. It's for businesses who are worried about being sued and don't want to be bothered. It's for programmers who are nervous and would like access to legal help. No one has to do this. If nobody does, that's nothing to me. My goal is to prevent future SCOs. If you have a better method, speak up. But my field is law. I see a way to block them, and I am working my tail off to beat them off. By certifying the code as infringement-free, OSRM has done something vitally significant, and all some of you critics can do is find fault? Shame on you.

Anyway, you'll get it later, most of you. But I can't wait for you to grok what I am doing. I believe in what I am doing and will continue to do it.

P.S. Did you notice Bruce Perens just hopped onboard? Extrapolate, folks.

09:06 AM EDT