Re: Great
От | Robert Treat |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Great |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1113493252.27598.431.camel@camel обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Great ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Great
|
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
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
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: