[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
From: Daniel Veillard [mailto:veillard@redhat.com]
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 10:37:05AM -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>> Ok. Your email sig says you work for Red Hat. Does Red Hat sign
>> indemnification and liquidation
>> clauses for systems it sells?
>No idea what you're speaking about. Is there a definition for
>those terms.
"INDEMNITY - An agreement whereby one party agrees to secure another against
an anticipated loss or damage. For example, someone may agree to turn a
business over to another person for a reduced price if they pay the debts
and other obligations of the business. In a broad sense, insurance policies
are indemnity contracts. (2) A provision in a lease that requires a tenant
to pay (indemnify) a landlord for damages."
>The GPL has a specific clause about dropping any IPR
>claim related to software provided under that Licence.
Understood. That means any contributor to a GPL license
needs indemnity insurance or is not managing their own risk.
They may also be exposing their customers to that risk, and
note I said, may. Because the risk is possible, not having
covered it means the business model (not the software product)
is not credible. The SCO suit exposed the risk.
> I understand the moral position. But it has to be supported by
> business practices that manage risks for customers. No offense
> intended, but that is how open source can become a credible
> competitor.
>Hum, we always seems to have very very different perception of
>what reality is. Seen a customer of Microsoft or IBM who managed
>to sue them because the software was not what they though they bought ?
We are what we eat. I read RFPs for a living. It is quite possible
my viewpoint and yours differ as a result of that. I don't think
based on your questions that you are working on the business side
of Red Hat or you would understand indemnification. It's a standard
part of contracting.
If they write an RFP and MS or IBM signs up to it, yes they can
be sued if as a result of using that software, the customer
incurs damages and the contract contains an indemnity clause.
The reseller assumes the obligation.
>My feeling is that the IT industry so far has afgreed to be
>tied to legal terms providing them zero recourse in case of conflict..
No, they sign indemnity clauses and have the necessary insurance.
It may be the case that the insurance companies are the first
arbiters of the open source business models. Interesting point.
>(at least for most of the base software), and as a result they
>seems to feel more and more okay to use software where they have
>far more control and freedom but where the Licence contains
>"THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
>IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FIT-
>NESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT."
The noninfringement clause is revealing. It is a caveat emptor
clause. The reseller ends up buying the insurance.
>I think your attempt at saying that open source is not
>yet a credible competitor (can become == is not yet) tends
>to prove a slight bias or deformed perception of reality (problem
>which certainly affects me too, but heck I'm typing this from
>the Linux Symposium meeting in Ottawa soo...i :-)
It's the business model, not the software. My guess is that
this issue is just now coming to the table because somehow
vendors are getting the insurance without the insurance
provider qualifying the risk, or they may be paying higher
premiums for it. Again, an interesting point.
len
|
