OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] Patented XML Compression Techniques (WAS RE: [xml-d ev] Bi

[ 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.


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.


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:


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?


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS