On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 11:05, Rodolfo Sikora wrote:
Good question!
I'm curious too :D
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:28:37 -0400, guy <pobox(_at_)watkins-home(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Question for Meng Weng Wong:
This list has been told that you have an agreement with Microsoft.
What can you tell us about your agreement with Microsoft?
If you are not allowed to say anything, then say so. But I would like to
know anything I can about the deal.
The reason I ask, maybe Microsoft now owns SPF?
I hope not.
Although I wouldn't be opposed to Meng addressing this question, where
did anyone get the impression that this was an agreement between Meng
and Microsoft in the sense of a contract? Because that's what would be
necessary for any kind of 'assignment of rights', (which sounds like
what's implied from the question) of SPF. And given that Meng has
neither written the implementations of SPF himself, AFAIK, nor filed for
any patents, as far as any of us know, then what, pray tell, 'rights'
could he possibly assign to Microsoft?
I always got the impression it was just an verbal agreement to work
together on a common standard. Not a contract between two companies to
exchange IPR of particular technologies.
There's enough (justified) bashing of Microsoft's action in this train
wreck. Let's not read more into things (like the word 'agreement') than
is necessary. What Microsoft did was of its own doing (and possibly,
hopefully, UNdoing). No aid from the outside was needed for this
nastiness.
So go ahead, Meng, answer if you want. But personally, I think it's a
waste of time to bark up this tree. Chuck Mead's got the right
approach, I think...just keep publishing what went on to bring on this
fiasco.
--
-Paul Iadonisi
Senior System Administrator
Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux.
GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets