[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Thanks for the detailed reply.
I think I didn't make myself clear on a few points. I'll mention two:
I wasn't worshipping Tim; I said he wouldn't have created the Web if
patents got in his way. You believe someone else would have created the
web? "Undecideable."
Basically, I tried to show how open source got us to this point. I
believe it's reasonable to extrapolate web future from web past, so open
source will continue to be important. You disagree, fine, I just tried
to show *why* many believe that.
> Those benefits are not special privileges.
I don't understand the difference.
> So the MIT patents are of no value to the Kerberos problems?
Right; MIT has no patents on Kerberos, nor did Needham and Schroeder who
first documented their creation in a _CACM_ article.
> Ok, then Microsoft was in the right and the Kerberos implementors
> are just whiners. Really?
I would not use the term whiner, but yes, really.
> The Open Source Community will have to work out a means to license
> patented technology. That is an obvious fact.
No, it's undecideable. After all, it hasn't had to happen yet. The OSS
community can continue to use its "political capital" to influence
business decisions. It's worked surprisingly well so far, it will be
interesting to see how things progress.
> Anyway, a lot of this is going to be moot.
Only if you've already given up. Luckily for the world, many haven't.
/r$
|
