[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
All of them. However, the customer also often
requires us to provide precisely SQL Server, etc.,
and when it screws up, requires us to fix it, and
then we beat on MS and sometimes they notice it.
But I was agog when I read that the GNU licensing
put all the risks on the buyer and that no one
was indemnifying open source sales. That is so
contrary to contracts I am familiar with it felt
like a rabbit hole to hell opening up. In other
jobs I do, I support open source and royalty free
specs and standards. I am beating up on certain
parties to make sure that if they submit to an
RFP, they show up with the RF policy signed, and
so far, that works. Responsible parties act
responsibly. I'm on record here and elsewhere
as saying the patent suits are an economic danger.
We must find a balance, and unfortunately, today,
part of that balancing act means having ones own
IP portfolio. The open sourcers naively or
arrogantly walked away from a necessary to do
business tool. This isn't a new requirement.
I think they started believing their own press
and here as in entertainment, that's bad.
I am not implying it is automatic. I am saying
flat out that it isn't. That is why the RFPs
have those paragraphs in them. Cost of doing
business. However, we've never had a problem
of being sued for patent infringements based
on Microsoft code. I'm sure someone will figure
out a way to do it.
Oh, and let me repeat what I've said already,
the EULA sucks. If open sourcers work out
their problems, that will be one more reason
to go to open source. Hint!
I'm not here to defend Microsoft or incriminate
open source. I'm reciting the facts of life
of doing business in a contracting environment.
I don't think too many here on this list read
this stuff all day. I do. Y'all share what
you know; I do the same.
It is very important that the open source and
GNU contracting community work out a means
to prevent patented material from entering
their code to the best of their ability. It
is important that those who buy products from
any source write the contracts to get the
best possible protection. Nothing is certain,
but as Tim said, some things are substantially
better than others.
len
From: Jim Ancona [mailto:jim@anconafamily.com]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> The GNU forces the cost of that back to the software purchaser
> and that is unacceptable to some buyers.
> It is a cost of doing business. As I read these
> RFPs, I see the indemnification clauses in all of
> them. This isn't new stuff. There is naivete
> or simple arrogance in denying it is important.
Len,
You keep implying that indemnification is automatic in the proprietary
software world. Is that really true? Here are a few links about the MS
SQL Server/Timeline lawsuit, where MS apparently purchased a patent
license that covers itself but not its customers:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-985359.html?tag=fd_top
http://www.ecommlawreport.com/ecommlawreport/article.html
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/3564
Does your company use SQL Server? Has MS indemnified you against patent
infringment? (Reading those articles, it appears that their standard
EULA doesn't, at least in the Timeline case.) If you're indemnifying
your customers, exactly what risks have you assumed?
|
