Trying to explain an objection I'd had presented to me at work to using this or that product often (not quite always) gets me extremely dogmatic answers.

Some time back, in an advocacy forum I brought up lack of indemnification as a serious concern heard inside a corporation. The overwhelming answer was that, for a variety of reasons, indemnification was a non-concern and that corporations were foolish for worrying about it. In the minority are companies such as HP and Red Hat now offering indemnification against infringement claims.

It puzzles me. How can we hope to convince people of the value of open source tools when we don't meet their objections head on? Why is our FUD any better than proprietary FUD?