A Closer Look At Oracle's (Legal) Linux 66
A reader wrote to us with Matt Asay's Infoworld piece digging into the legal background of Oracle's indemnification offerings for Linux. Turns out, things are not quite so rosy as PR would make it seem. I know, I know...suprise all around. You can read Oracle's FAQ about it, but some of the tastier bits are that the indemnification covers *just* the kernel, and that whole thing about damage limits? Read what Matt has to say:'The indemnification is not in any way limited to the amount of money a customer has paid Oracle.
Apparently, Oracle's legal department missed the memo on this one. If you read Section J of the agreement (Limitation of Liability), you'll note that while Oracle offers unlimited indemnification for consequential damages related to an infringement claim (and that only for the one package, the Linux kernel), it caps all other damages at the amount you pay to Oracle.'
That's expected! (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds reasonable to me!
What bits in the Linux kernel .. (Score:2)
Re:What bits in the Linux kernel .. (Score:5, Insightful)
The indemnification thing is for executives that got spooked by the SCO debacle.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
0 and 1 bits.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I prefer illegal linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares about Oracle linux. Redhat AS is damn good, Centos is a great free copy, and Ubuntu and the others are awesome for home/tinker/easy to use... How can they come so late to the game and even get near what redhat and Debian have done?
Your .sig (Score:5, Informative)
Your wait is over. [sourceforge.net]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
In LiVES, it is better to cut your scenes first using the shuttle controls/dvgrab, and then load in each scene as a separate clip. You can then fine tune the clips, and bring them together in the multitrack window.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the link.
Re:I prefer illegal linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Patents aren't a threat to innovation. They encourage innovation! People will innovate by coming up with new ways to work around the patents [primidi.com]!
</sarcasm>
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Just a friendly reminder to show you how wrong you are :
What is the n1 linux distribution right now ? Ubuntu
When was Ubuntu launched ? October 20, 2004 (although we can say it really started to get some audience after v4 in 2005)
So Ubuntu is fairly new, yet it achieved a great popularity. They did so by adding something new to a common Linux distribution (Debian). So if Oracle manages to add something new (or off
Re:I prefer illegal linux (Score:5, Insightful)
What have you done to shorten the wait?
Re: (Score:1)
What have you done to shorten the wait?
Moved to a real operating system. Not a pile of random junk that is Linux today. Its the old why build a crappy car when I can buy a nice one.
Stupid troll:P
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
How do you know he hasn't done anything?
How do you know he hasn't started coding a video editor, but jus had trouble getting it working.
How do you know that he hasn't contributed to one of the projects out there, but doesn't consider it up to his standards yet.
Such as profesionals who need CYMK and need a linux replacement for photoshop. People say the GIMP is good enough all the time, photoshop is a photo editor, you can't claim GMIP is when it can't even split th
Re: (Score:1)
I do not know because he has not told us. That is why I asked.
So much for that! (Score:2, Interesting)
What is this crap? (Score:3, Funny)
I'll start distributing "Vista - The Non Child Molester version". All the other Vista versions are pedobear-approved.
I take responsibility! (Score:3, Insightful)
So you don't (Score:4, Interesting)
From an IP perspective, seems that they do [microsoft.com]. And it also seems pretty extensive. From here [itjungle.com]: Apparently this is nothing new in the arena. Companies use shady patent laws to create 'protection' rackets providing insurance. I guess this is to protect from patent trolls by pooling a lot of patents in one lot. Most companies cross-license patents instead of litigation making an even bigger pool(see IBM). Ironic considering what patents were designed to do, don't you think?
Reversal. (Score:3, Interesting)
How is it not obvious to, well, everyone that this is a bunch of nonsense? Why is open source software more likely to contain stolen code than any product from Microsoft or Oracle or any other proprietary vendor? (It is not, of course, because it is easy to find.) Like most matters of “intellectual property” the reasoning is totally inverted. We should have indemification licenses for closed source software, not open.
Re:Reversal. (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not doing this because they truly think Open Source is a festering pile of stolen code; if they did, they'd be suing. How to determine motivation from actions [jerf.org]: The question is not whether motivation A "explains" action B, the question is whether given motivation A, is action B the best action? Given the belief that open source has a lot of stolen code, the "best action" would be a lawsuit blitz. Since they aren't doing that and are just trying to sow FUD, my conclusion is they do not believe that open source has a lot of stolen code. The motivation that matches is that they want to hobble open source; in that case, this is [what they believe is] their best action.
Business IT may not always be the most tech savvy people, but they are business savvy; this is going to work for a while but you can only talk about vague patent violations for so long before they notice that if they were real you'd be actually suing. That makes this a fairly pathetic attack; eventually everybody is going to see through it and they'll have spent real credibility on this last-ditch effort.
This is coming up because as pathetic as it is for that reason, it's the best attack they've got. RMS deserves some props for this, and anyone else who helped design and promote the copy-left ideal; it's a brilliant judo-flip on the copyright system. They can't invalidate Open Source licensing without also taking out their own licensing practices.
(Which is also why you see so many people trying to invalidate it on the grounds that they didn't have to pay money for it, as it, too, is the only available legal attack, and it doesn't work, because even if it works it doesn't mean GPL software is "public domain" in the full legal sense, it means it's a copyrighted work you have now no rights to possess or distribute. Oops.)
It's not about stolen code, it's about trying to find some way, any way to slow down open source. ("Stopping" it is almost certainly an unrealistic goal and I doubt they are really trying that, as I think in that case "best action" swings back to "lawsuit flurry", in the desperate hope that maybe they can win something important.)
Re: (Score:1)
Indemnification (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me preface this by saying I have no idea what I'm talking about and this is all guesswork. Then again, this is Slashdot..anyways:
Looking back at a previous [slashdot.org] story [infoworld.com], they mention:
Weren't most of the SCO lawsuits stating that only the Linux kernel contained their IP? Perhaps this is what Oracle had in mind when only offering to cover the kernel for purposes of indemnification.
Either way, I'm not very knowledgeable on the topic, but the linked article came off as kind of nitpicking
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The guy is analysing a legal agreement, in particular its Limitation of Liability section. Nitpicking is required and, in fact, is the important thing.
Oracle's own legal standpoint for GPL attributions (Score:5, Insightful)
Some basic facts for people to be aware of:
1. Dubious rebuild practices: They seem to be using centos as a buffer to Red Hat. See http://oss.oracle.com/linux/legal/oracle-list.htm
2. Dozens of bloggers and community members are already calling it a failure. see the following for your current opinion: http://ultramookie.com/wayback/2006/10/26/uncompa
Oracle seems to be walking a very fine line with overall compliance with the GPL. They have taken some patches from centos and removed the user attribution.
Personally, CentOS http://www.centos.org/ [centos.org] has already proven to be a top notch alternative to RHEL, and while there's no indemnification, it works far better than oracle linux seems to at this point, and they provide more community support than oracle seems to want to.
Re:Oracle's own legal standpoint for GPL attributi (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This is GPL code, not BSD code.
They can remove ANYTHNG THEY DAMN WELL PLEASE because that is what the GPL license allows for. Their only requirement is that they release the source of their derivative work to anyone who recieves the binary version of same. If the source is available such that you can whine about something like this than they are in compliance with the license that the code is actually released under.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Any of the source. Removing any part of the license or the license grant means that this user's contribution is no longer licensed, period. Every person who contributes to a GPL'd file is making a derivative work and has joint copyright on the derivative version. They must be identified and also grant a license under the GPL. In fact, removing copyright notices is itself a criminal offense under copyright law. And
Read the GPL (Score:2)
Read the damn license that I've been writing code under for ten years. I'll tell you this: if you remove my attribution from any of my GPLed code, expect a summons.
I've allowed a couple of project maintainers, with my permission, to place my code under the project's ownership and copyright with just a notice of thanks to me. That was my choice, and it was determined by the project maintainer and myself to be better for the projects involved. I do not give anyone free
Re: (Score:2)
EVERYTHING else is fair game.
If you are attempting to "hack" the license then that's a GPL violation of it's own. The original BSDL was considered GPL-incompatible because of this sort of restriction.
Some personal private license you may have cooked up is of no relevance here.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you are a troll or a complete idiot, you cannot really support the idea that a license that is built on copyright can support the undermining of that copyright and continue to function.
Re:Oracle's own legal standpoint for GPL attributi (Score:3, Interesting)
He doesn't.
Dozens of bloggers and community members are already calling it a failure
He also doesn't care about what people named Mookie or BS think, either. Whether it's a failure or not will come out on Oracle's next quarterly report, or maybe a few after that; you can't rule out the possibility that this is a loss-leader aimed at expanding Oracle market share. Every dollar t
Ah! (Score:4, Funny)
Then I have exactly the amount of indemnification I need.
Look what Oracle did to Apache (Score:3, Interesting)
running apxs was hope less. The version of perl that Oracle shipped
included libraries that did not exist. How good is it that "use strict"
would not load, And after switching that perl , oracles apxs wanted
to load *.o files that Oracle did not ship. In effect Oracle's version
of Apache will only work with software shipped by Oracle. And
the perl software and libraries shipped by Oracle are useless.
I have to ask my self why Oracle shipped them in the first place.
When they do that to a Linux distro I expect a computer that can only
run Oracle software. How useless will that be?
Re: (Score:2)
Open Source indemnification is FUD (Score:3, Interesting)
As an individual, you will not be sued for using Linux.
If you are a mega company, and you resell Linux, perhaps someone will lodge a "trivial patent" lawsuit or other lawsuit at you.
But that could happen with other software that you re-license. And that's what the lawyers are for. And hopefully patent laws get fixed someday.
Not a very bold move (Score:1)
OSRM released a study [osriskmanagement.com] that showed there were no high risk patent problems with the kernel. Oracle has just seemingly taken the results of that study and made some wild PR statements.
Thanks but no thanks. I'll stick with Red Hat.
Oracle's (legal) linux (Score:2)
Protection? (Score:2)
limited indemnity.... (Score:1)