How to handle C&D's?
От | Joshua Kramer |
---|---|
Тема | How to handle C&D's? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | alpine.LFD.2.00.0810241104460.944@dhcppc0 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | specificity of claims (was: SEPostgres - on track for 8.4?) (Andrew Sullivan <ajs@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: How to handle C&D's?
|
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
> pending and granted in the project's areas of development. By doing > this, in the worst case you remain ignorant, and later get a cease and > desist letter. If you start looking for things, you implicitly Has anybody thought about how you'd handle a C&D in terms of communicating to users? If somebody at Bob's House of IP Enforcers sends someone on the PG team a C&D that says Feature XYZ violates their patent, and it is found to be true by the PG team - then what? If we imagine just a little further and say that there are various commercial and open source projects, in which the availabilty of Feature XYZ is ingrained into the system - they can't function without it - then what? If PGDG communicated the C&D, then commercial interests could point to the problem and say "that's why you don't use Open Source!" Those who have knowledge of how things actually are would know that it would be an indictment of the patent system itself, but the situation would be one more tool in the bag of tricks of those who want to discourage the use of Open Source in general and PG in particular. I know, preaching to the choir - but is the philosophical issue something we need to hash out and plan for? Thoughts? Cheers, -Josh Kramer ----- http://www.globalherald.net/jb01 GlobalHerald.NET, the Smarter Social Network! (tm)
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: