Wait wait wait... Oracle screws up, Novell insuts the community, IBM's totally absent, and Sun Micro comes to the rescue? Who would've thought...

I can't find the quoted text anywhere online and I find no references on Oracles site to the document. This could just mean it's hidden away someplace but it would have been helpful to post a link to the source document. Next, the way I read the sentence from the FAQ it means that the limitation is the same regardless of what you paid for it. In other words, if I paid $50 or $5000 to Oracle it makes no difference. This is in contrast to many plans that can limit the indemnification to the amount paid (a common scam in extended service plans) and Oracle is stating that this is NOT the case. Lastly, what really bugs me about this article is the confusion over the meaning of 'emphasis.' To me, lacking the source document he's commenting on, it's not clear that he has emphasized or commented on the text. In the first use, it's ambiguous, though I would normally expect legal documents to use commas rather than parentheses. In the second case, the formatting and the language imply a comment rather than an emphasis.

"Unbreakable" = FUD

...implies RHEL can break.

Neil, the following words from the article above were emphasised (though it's difficult to see as they're in caps):

ORACLE'S MAXIMUM LIABILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THIS AGREEMENT OR YOUR ORDER, WHETHER IN CONTRACT OR TORT, OR OTHERWISE, SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT OF THE FEES YOU PAID ORACLE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT

You should find out what acronyms stand for before making statements that clearly show you do not.
FUD != lie or lies
FUD = Fear Uncertainty and Doubt

Although I'm no fan of oracle, They are a dominant player in enterprise IT. Their embracing Linux can only help speed up the overall acceptance of Linux in enterprise IT.

"I can't find the quoted text anywhere online and I find no references on Oracles site to the document"

Neither can I. This isn't a good thing - it appears that (at least when buying online), you don't get to see the contract you're paying for until after you make the purchase. All the product documents I could find on the Oracle site specifically state that they are not intended to be part of any contractual agreement. If it's not there, then it's not Matt Asay's fault that he can't provide a link.

"Oracle is stating that this is NOT the case"

They are, in a document which says "NOTE: NO CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS ARE FORMED EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BY THIS DOCUMENT." If they state something different in a document which does describe the contractual obligations, then that's bad.

The fact that Oracle don't have the actual contract terms on their site makes me inclined to believe that the version quoted by Matt Asay is the real thing, and Oracle's FAQ is misleading. You would think it was in Oracle's interests to show people the details of what they are selling - apparently they don't think so.

Come on, you know why Oracle did this and it is not indemnification. They showed that there is no sustainable open source 'business' model, they subterfuged the whole thing in one fail swoop. There is no barrier to entry, period.