On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:35:22 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> OpenLogic Launches Indemnification for its Certified Library of Open Source
> Products
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| "Open source software has made great headway into the
>| enterprise," said Steven Grandchamp, CEO of OpenLogic.
>| "But for enterprises to fully embrace a broad range of
>| open source products, they need to be able to deploy,
>| manage and control their open source usage and limit
>| their legal risk. This is the first time that enterprises
>| have been able to access indemnification coverage for
>| such a broad range of open source products from a
>| single vendor."
> `----
>
> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061016/sfm049.html?.v=71
>
>
> Related (some wrapping issues):
>
> Case study - Open source allows risk management firm to minimises risk
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| A respected engineering and risk management consultancy has decided
>| toreduce its own exposure to risk by migrating to a complete open source
>| infrastructure.
>|
>| ESR Technology (ESRT) believes that it has freed itself from the expense
>| and vendor lock-in associated with proprietary software by deploying
>| an entirely open source network infrastructure.
> `----
>
> http://www.computerweekly.com/ARTICLES/2006/04/25/215739/Case+study+-+Open+source+allows+risk+management+firm+to+minimises+risk.HTM
>
>
> Open source risky? Nah. Just if you hire an attorney who doesn't grok it
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| the "risk" of open source is no greater, and is generally far less, than
>| the risk of using proprietary software.
> `----
>
> http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2006/08/open_source_ris.html
>
>
> Closing the Open Source Door a Risky Proposition
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| The move from an open source model to a closed one may appeal to
>| developers seeking to pay their bills, but the transition is a risky
>| one. Some customers will balk at losing control of applications key to
>| their business -- the federal government, in particular -- and may look
>| for other open source alternatives to meet their software needs.
> `----
>
> http://www.linuxinsider.com/rsstory/52200.html
>
>
> Your data or your life
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| As unlikely and alarmist as this sounds, it could really happen. Intracare
>| is the publisher of a popular practice management system called Dr. Notes.
>| When some doctors balked at a drastic increase in their annual software
>| lease, they were cut off from accessing their own patients? information.
>|
>| This situation is completely unconscionable. There can be no truly
>| open doctor-patient relationship when an unrelated third party is the
>| de facto owner of and gatekeeper to all related data.
> `----
>
> http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/node/1709
>
>
> Putting risk back on the vendor, not the customer
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| Back to faith. In open source, risk shifts to the vendor, because there
>| is no upfront license fee, just the ongoing support and maintenance. As
>| such, if the open source vendor fails to deliver ongoing value, you
>| dump them. Period. And if the product is great but the support is not,
>| you can go to one of their SIs or others to get support.
>|
>| Yes, this puts a lot of risk on open source vendors. No, it's not easy.
>| But yes, it is a dramatically better value proposition for enterprise
>| buyers. No question.
>|
>| Enterprises should stop paying Monopoly Money (licenses) to vendors.
>| They should pay for value, not licenses.
> `----
>
> http://asay.blogspot.com/2006/10/putting-risk-back-on-vendor-not.html
How refreshing. Admission that indemnification is necessary for Open
Source to be taken seriously.
|
|
