[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Changing the topic line so Jay can relieve his boredom
by the available means.
From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@datapower.com]
>> As a result, [open source]
>> competitors can use their innovations
>Depends on the licensing -- you do understand the GPL, right?
Yes.
>As for the presuambly patentable IP that's behind the code, well...
>many (most?) in the open source community are willing to accept the
>risk that competitors might adopt it. They see that as a reasonable
>cost of doing business, rather than be part of a system that requires
>a defensive patent portfolio of one's own.
Sure. It may not work, but I understand that. If they really
do believe they have superior product, they should be working that
angle more agressively and not MSPhobia. On TV here, they seem
to be doing that. I think the Ban IE campaign silly but silly
is not altogether ineffective. I've other concerns with Moz that
are technical (what does it do with plugins for the same languages
it supports internally; how well does it perform given the expanding
size of the framework if languages are added; in other words, the usual
distinctions of browser vs operating system and plug in services).
>> 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.
>First, why do you draw a line between IBM/RH and "the open source
>community"? They are part of the community, and they are meeting a
>market need by providing indemnification. Don't think of the
>OSS community as just some work-at-home hackers grinding at code;
>it's much bigger than that.
I understand that. The line I am drawing is to distinguish those
who do sell big systems based on open source to the total community.
It is precisely that IBM/RH must indemnify and what I read contradicts
what you assert: they aren't doing that. That is the problem.
>Second, the beauty of having the code -- and, subtly but almost more
>importantly, it's edit history -- in the public is that companies can
>do their own due diligence to the extent that they feel the need.
They can. Their customers can't. If they have confidence, then they sign
the indemnification clauses. That is all.
>most companies keep a strict Chinese Wall between legal IP
>and source code developers.
Not here. We are very aware of IP issues. We had to lose
our hardware division over that because a bigger fish decided
to ignore the legal niceties. Don't do that.
>Third, they don't need control over the compilation and submission
>process. Cherry-picking has always been encouraged.
Can they substitute pieces, say, pieces for which they own IP?
Do they indemnify? That is the issue here, not the ownership
of IP. IP just makes it easier to settle a suit such as the
SCO suit. It will also make some open source vendors more
competitive than others. Standards and open source do not
level the playing field. They can actually make it permanently
unlevel.
len
|
