[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jonathan@openhealth.org]
Len,
>Which is it:
>1) is he trying to enter the rarified ranks of longlived thread starters by
>trying to squash a thread ... sort of like trying to eliminate a lawn of
>ripe dandilions with a lawnmower... or
Dunno. Could be someone who has decided to join the gang by whuppin'
one of the regulars. Could be more of the anti-American stuff that
has become epidemic, could just be the coffee, could be a sore delete
key finger, and yes, we do have a rather large range of topics. Some
appreciate that; others don't. "the whole world is festering with unhappy
souls".
>2) does he think he you could actually be subdued with a mere slap on the
>hand...
If so, he hasn't been lurking as long as he claims. I've only dropped
off this list twice: once some years ago when changing jobs, and
recently when my Dad died and I was unwilling to expose the list
to raw grief that has a way of bursting through rational thought.
But this list is how I keep up with a range of topics that do
affect issues of concern, and they aren't all technical. Markup
systems do have a range of concerns. One thing I will claim; this
list has enabled the web community of developers to mature past
the level of pointy brackets and understand the interdependencies
of our work together at many levels. It keeps the rats down.
>3) who cares: what do you really think about the claim on the GNU site that
>since SCO has licensed Linux _themselves_ under the GPL, that they've given
>up all proprietary claims ... that one makes good sense to me.
It does on the surface but claims law is murky as I said. Intel thought
they could do anything and the Texas courts told them they couldn't. It
simply tells the rest of us to take care, that open source is not laissez
faire and to read those contracts we sign when providing it. It is not
the open source community but their customers who raised the indemnity issue
and
because it is a standard business practice. The SCO suit brought it
to the surface. I expect a review of open source procedures and possibly
some adjustments. IP is a different problem. As said elsewhere, they
are trading off IP advantages for other advantages. Local choice.
>4) I think that neither the Chinese nor German gov'ts will need any sort of
>indemnification against IP claims against Linux, it will only be the big
>American corps that will need to tizzy themselves with that issue... in the
>end they'll either use it or lose it.
I don't know. One doesn't only sell to bigCos. One also sells to big
cities, state governments and the like. What I know is that every RFP
I read has T&Cs for indemnity protection, usually insurance requirements.
So I expect it will be the insurance companies who sort it out by working
out rates for open source based on their appraisal of risk. I would expect
the open source vendors (those selling systems) to insist on processes
that reduce risk so the insurance companies will reduce rates. Otherwise,
it is a cost passed to customers and one of the much touted advantages
of open source is reduced. The IP litigations are a separate issue though
one that can raise the insurance company's risk evaluation. Wait and see.
I figure we have crunched the nut out of the topic though and understand it
as far as we need to until new events warrant reexamination.
Rick's question was interesting though: what are the impacts of XML-based
standardization on indemnity? It should reduce risk. That is something
the legal beagles and insurance adjustors should take a serious look at.
What are the proofs of performance possible through XML systems?
len
|
