[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@mercury.ccil.org]
Len Bullard scripsit:
>> 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.
>True.
That is the issue that gives me headaches. It comes down
to telling a customer that wants Linux or Moz, we can't offer
that and if you buy it, your offeror must indemnify or
you must assume all risks. The SCO/IBM case is undecided
but it exposed the risks.
>The claim that these capabilities are derived from SCO code is
>nothing but a lie: calling it FUD would be too polite.
I don't know. SCO has invited reporters to their site to
inspect the code. That is no proof either. Intel made
the same kinds of claims about the Intergraph case, almost
won in the press, but lost in the courts. IP suits are
very technical, very dull, and very expensive; first
to litigate, then to lose. But the value of IP is now
undeniable. Attempting to try an IP claim in the press
(eg, using MSPhobia) just doesn't work and can in fact,
open the user of that strategy up to more lawsuits as
well as making the judges angry.
>> 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?
>They can't. The positions "What I have I keep" and "What I
>have I share" aren't compatible. The only way to make it
>work would be to acquire *irrelevant* IP, things that were
>not needed for open-source implementation, and use that as
>leverage.
Not precisely. MPEG patent pools work for the members.
Laissez faire IP keiretsu will as well. They share but
they trade value for value. The W3C patent policy may
drive a stake to set a moral position, but it also drives
it into the balls of the open source community. It deprives
them of value for innovation as a trading commodity. It
limits their ability to manage indemnification risks. It
works if and only if they offer all innovations up to
public domain and if they manage the code such that there
is clearly and provably no indemnification risk so they
can sign those parts of the contract. As a result, their
competitors can use their innovations and can retain
their own separately generated IP. To the closed system,
there is no risk but you are right about unrelated IP.
>Here's the WineHQ status report on FoxPro. Summary: it basically works.
>http://appdb.winehq.com/appview.php?appId=296;PHPSESSID=c6754c61eacca78ae62
8ce6b7826da20
Thanks for that!
>> 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.
>The warranty becomes what you sell, yes. The ketchup analogy works
>well here: there is no IP in ketchup recipes, but most people buy
>rather than making their own.
Nyet. It is what you sign and what you obligate yourself to
pay if a customer liquidates. If the open source community is
unable to warranty and indemnify, then the IBMs and Red Hats
have to as a condition of profiting from open source. My
guess is, they will want much more control over the compilation
and submission processes to do that.
len
|
