[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Indemnification and Open Source (WAS RE: the web client interf
Changing the topic line so Jay can relieve his boredom by the available means. From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@d...] >> 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
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|