[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
i think there's a basic misunderstanding here between the "needs" of
bigger business from a corporate perspective and the "needs" of the
programmers, contractors, consultants trying to make things happen
across a myriad of businesses, large, small, and non-existent (or
personal).
but before i comment further, there is something very bizarre about the
latest in the sco round, and it is a warning to all of us.
if i understand their latest demand correctly they assert that ibm
developed some ip, contributed it to unix, and that it is therefore now
owned by sco, even though they didn't pay for it. ibm no longer is
considered free to do with their ip as they like - ie contribute it to
linux. this may go further than ip and to the very heart of contract law
and the nature of a contract - does there have to be a valuable exchange
for there to be an enforceable contract?
open source, and standards, make it easier for large numbers of
professionals, like myself, to build larger, better, more innovative,
and more reliable systems because we share expertise. some of it's
operating systems, some of it's ideas, some of it's programs. this is
really about the workers working better, not the corporations getting
richer. but it is working very well, unofficially, for the corporation.
and often it's the simple tools that are really good - xsltproc and my
own xml design for multi page forms has transformed the nightmare task
of getting good postscript. thanks to the w3c, xml, and gnu.
len, you asked earlier about what i do to protect my ip. the answer
really is nothing. granted that in australia my rights are protected by
default as the author under australian copyright law. however i see it
in my interest for others to take the ideas, copy and use them.
otherwise they'll simply die.
the ip is broad - a database language contemporary with sql that
understands data relationships and can express far more complex
mathematics than the simple functions we seem to discuss in this group,
b+ tree algorithms, tree pruning, optimistic table locking, and
commercial apps.
right now i want to build xml functionality deep into the database, as
an updated method of expressing our totally declarative programming - ie
a slightly more flexible approach. we also use a lot of interprocess and
intersystem communication and xml seems like a good way to do that.
if i can ever get to the bottom of web services that should fit nicely
too, but they will be the subject of a new thread.
so for me at least all this is about our work personally. if the
corporation is happy buying based on the size and security of the
organisation and its ip, that's fine, we all get what we buy.
cheers
rick
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 06:05, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Not exactly. The problems I think they have are:
>
> 1. Uncertain business models. The lack of indemnification
> is a showstopper. They better work that out pronto if
> they want to compete for big accounts.
>
> 2. Lack of IP. This makes it hard to stay competitive
> unless they innovate and obtain IP. I don't mean the
> competition to get market share, but the competition
> to keep cash flow given costs. I think the SCO
> episode is at least indicative of the problem. They
> do need multiprocessor capabilities in Linux. If
> they had trading agreements, they could pick that
> up from SCO by having IBM agree to swap IP with
> SCO. On the other hand, they still have to work
> out the details of distribution. But those are
> standard agreements. Now does that apply to all
> open source (has to by the agreements that open
> source contributors make) or just IBM? See the problem?
> If the open source community owned common IP, they
> could make good deals and maintain cash flow positions.
> Otherwise, the low cost position evaporates in the
> face of licensing costs. Indemnification costs
> exacerbate that. Now can they acquire tradable
> IP and still meet the "exquisitely high standards"
> of the W3C patent policy?
>
> In short, open source systems have to compete to
> the same requirements as any other system.
>
> I held on to my Netscape browser until MS made the
> Outlook options competitive. Netscape made it easy
> to get and send email. In other words, I
> do see the applications to the Internet as valuable
> and my choice of browser could reflect my morals
> because it did the jobs I needed to do.
>
> As to the operating system itself, at home I
> choose a platform for which a host of reliable
> sound processing utilities are available. So
> it gets pretty specific when one starts to consider
> the desktop apps. If I could afford it, I might
> switch to an all Apple solution, but then when
> I have to go home and do FoxPro work, I'm back
> to Windows.
>
> Good enough is good enough until it isn't. I don't bet
> against open source. I'm counting on it. But they better
> get a lot smarter about what is required to do business
> in environments that require guarantees, warranties, etc.
> as well as being cheaper. Cheap is just a matter of
> what the business is worth: call that the cost of
> owning the customer. Anyone can do cheap.
>
> "Papa was a rolling stone. Wherever he laid his
> hat was his home, and when he died, all he left
> us was alone." - Whitfield/Strong
>
> len
>
>
> From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@reutershealth.com]
>
> Bullard, Claude L (Len) scripsit:
>
> > It's a fear if the threat is to what one fears losing. It is phobia when
> > it is the knee jerk means to raise a rabble because they are afraid of
> > losing market share. If Moz is really demonstrably clearly to any
> > user better, it can hold its own.
>
> You can demonstrate all you want, but many people will not listen.
>
> > >so i support ip, open source, proprietary products, and most importantly
> > >standards. but in the end the big companies and the markets will
> > >determine which, if any, of these things have value.
> >
> > Me too, but given our business model, the bigCos are there to enable
> > us to manage risks for our customers, to enable us to sell based on
> > the applications we build and the types of content we manage, and
> > not on spending cash assets to obtain core technology without IP
> > advantages. We will lose if we go down that path.
> >
> > >buying based on who you can sue is basically admitting failure before
> > >you've even tried success. that might explain a lot of large system
> > >failures
> >
> > It is only down at the level of core technology that open
> > source is competing seriously (open office not withstanding) and
> > there they do it without IP management which reduces their overall
> > credibility.
>
> There's a sequence here.
>
> 1) "Open source is just a toy; there will never be an OS."
>
> 2) "Open source has an OS, but it will never have a desktop."
>
> 3) "Open source has a desktop, but it will never have credible office apps."
>
> Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
