[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I find this sort of political bantering and blather on this list to
be counter-productive to the purposes of a list named
"xml-dev@lists.xml.org".
Is there a chance you guys can be bothered, next time you see fit to
share your insight into things not relating to XML, to *not*
reply-All and include the list address in the header?
Especially if theres' no actual XML developer-related content
involved ... I understand there is a social scene with every list
that functions, but there are some seriously more XML'ish things we
could be talking about, I'm sure.
Ta. This SCO story and the subsequent philosophical blather is
boooorring. Same with the "XML bad guys vs. XML good guys" politics.
Sorry.
j.
At 9:07 -0500 23/7/2003, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>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
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>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>
--
;
Jay Vaughan
r&d>>music:technology:synthesizers - www.access-music.de/
*
|
