On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 07:17:53AM -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
This is the second first time post on this thread.
Licensing issues are being dealt with, your paranoias are irrelevant,
take it to the IETF IPR forum.
Let me explain a few things. I waited this long with posting, because
these licensing issues 'are being dealt with' for months now, and still
nothing has come out. Each time I see the issue raised on this list,
people yell 'keep your emotions out of this list', 'no discussion of
hidden agenda's' etc.. Effectivelly, the whole issue is being swept
under the carpet, and before we know it the IETF is spreading a patented
protocol around the world.
I am not paranoid. I know how microsoft has used the law before to crush
anything that is in their way of dominating the software market. They
_will_ use this patent to crush anything that they don't like, this is
not paranoia, this is extrapolated fact. They have done before on
numerous occasions, they will keep doing this until the sun goes
supernova. This is not something i say because of my emotions, this is
pure rational extrapolation of empirical observation. I'm not going to
paste the endless list here where microsoft has used the law + the fact
that no-one has more money to pay to lawyers, since I assume you know
pretty well what I'm talking about. Time after time, microsoft has
attacked small companies that have to struggle to pay just the one
lawyer with an overwhelming force of 30 lawyers.
And the more people like you attack the people who voice their concern by
saying they are emotional paranoid nobodies, the more you will alienate the
large (and apparently in your eyes irrelevant) community of smaller network
operators and consultancy companies that in the end will have to implement
your patented protocol.
Many of us simply will not. No matter how many times you call us
paranoid, emotional unstable, etc.. There are some strong opinions on
this subject matter, ignoring them as you do would be foolish. The fact
that lawyers will have to go over this, means I will have to get a
lawyer if I ever want to do something with the protocol.
And BTW GNU would be an entirely unacceptable licensing scheme for
a patent controlling a protocol standard in any case.
I never said anything about GNU and I never said that I want any
protocol controlled by patents. I don't understand this 'argument' of
yours.
Frankly, I think you are the one reacting emotional here, out of some
disgust for us open source guys or something. Please, be rational.
Without the open source community on board, your protocol is doomed.
Koen
--
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, embedded systems, unix expertise, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/
pgpehVkoLr7SE.pgp
Description: PGP signature