[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Yes, I think the EULA could stand some scrutiny as an
anti-competitive practice, but now we are out of the
RFP expertise and into an area of murky law. NAL either.
We do business in Australia. We got into a big mess
there over a services contract when an election put
a different politic into action. It cost a lot to
dig out. On the other hand, that bit about beaches
would be really good if I were a younger guy. And
the 'sheilas' are fantastic. I am personally a big
fan of the Ozzies. Wish I could visit. Not likely.
Ok, my monkieMind is emerging. Bad Zoot! Bad Zoot!
In my world, efficient DTD/schemas, namespaces and so
on will be a blessing of unbelievable proportions.
Our big costs are in the implementation of customized
systems over a COTS core. We are working toward
XMLization as fast as resources and opportunities enable.
Those who remember my posts from a few years ago know
this is a seachange.
But public safety is not an early adopter business, and there
are those who believe signing up for unproven standards
is commercial suicide. Others assert we need to
get up front and push, but because we are RFP-driven,
we are pushing a noodle, not a cart. And there are
those on the customer side who believe security issues
are not solved, and public safety is a very security
minded business. But it is happening. That does
not mean commitment to the browser model. It is
one tool among others. XML doesn't care. We can
get the benefits using the browser and other means.
I think that proven practices such as wide spread
use of DTDs, schemas, etc. reduce exposure to
indemnity. XML can bring down the cost by reducing
the exposure to locally-defined events where proof
resides with local authorities. I think this is
the sort of thing insurance companies should have
explained to them.
Note that it is tough to globalize XML schemas
and practices. The local business rules within
a country are tough; when going global, they
get exponentially tougher. So that is a longer
tick.
len
From: Rick Marshall [mailto:rjm@zenucom.com]
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 04:36, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> To be fair to both sides of this one,
> MSFT pointed out at the FoxPro Dev Con that any user running
> FoxPro, or any components delivered with FoxPro, on a
> non-Microsoft OS (they mentioned Linux in particular, but
> not limited to) is in violation of the EULA (End User License Agreement)
> they agreed to when they purchase the product.
>
not a lawyer, but i don't think the eula will stand up under very many
trade practices laws. there's an implied restriction of trade. but it
would be ok to not guarantee the product's performance on a non ms os.
it's a bit like saying you can only buy this petrol if you are going to
use it in a ford car.
ms has threatened more than once to withdraw from australia over these
issues - perhaps you could move your company here? weather and beaches
aren't too bad either
so to make it more relevant to some others...
having discussed these issues to some extent and we have some knowledge
of the issues - i get the feeling that in your world len, the publishing
of namespaces, dtd's and shared business structures is a possible killer
issue for widespread use of xml. whose responsible for errors and who
carries the indemnity?
rick
|
