Re: Great

On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 22:52, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >>> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39194883,00.htm
> >>
> >>
> >> I also wonder why we never contacted IBM...
> >
> > Because it isn't relevant. Regardless of IBMs decision to be good to OSS. It
> > is better, when it is known to be patent using free.
>
> And, notice IBMs comment in the article that states that even IBM isn't
> sure what they would do in the circumstances we've detailed :(
>

I don't think it is impossible to suggest that they might have publicly
stated they would not enforce the patent against even commercial
entities who made use of it. In all honestly ARC's commercial value at
this point seems pretty limited having seen a real world implementation
that was not terribly successful.

I don't know if they have ever done that before, but other companies
have done things like that. Had we contacted them privately it would
have given them the chance to address this case, even if only off the
record.

I'll stand by cores decision here though since ARC vs. 2Q is not really
a downgrade and I agree we're probably better off to have just
side-stepped the whole thing, but I can certainly understand why some
would be confused by how things were handled.


Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL