Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 May 2002 21:34:57 -0400 | From | Mark Mielke <> | Subject | Re: A reply on the RTLinux discussion. |
| |
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 02:31:53AM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > Alan Cox wrote: > > Perhaps you should spend your > > time thinking instead of insinuating everyone on the planet who isnt > > working for rtai is a liar ? > I am watching this whole mess already quite some time and I am trying > very hard to make sense out of this. Victor pretends to be the nice guy > here, but if one looks closer, one can see how little respect he has for
I can't speak for Victor, but...
Is it illegal for Victor to keep his options open?
It is really simple. Either A) Victor has a patent, and code in RTAI may need to be licensed, or B) Victor has a patent, and code in RTAI does not need to be licensed.
The text for the patent is available. Technical people and lawyers huddle over a table, decide whether it is worth the risk, and go from there. This is the way that every company must go under our current legal structure.
Even if you *did* get a 'straight' answer out of Victor, his words would not change his ability to sue RTAI. If RTAI needs a license, they should *get* a license. If they don't need a license, they don't need a license.
What is clear, is that the wrong question is being asked to the wrong person. You don't ask Victor whether you can be exempt from potential risk. You ask Victor for a license (i.e. written down and signed by his company), or you take the risk, and assume that you do not need a license. In neither case do you ask "I think my code might infringe on your patent, can you make a (verbal) statement publicly that you will look away if indeed you ever, at any time in the future, decide that it is?"
In fact, if such a question was posed (which I think we have observed), I would assume that the company posing the question was not legally responsible, and *I*, as a prospective client in need of a RT OS for my application, would avoid. The last thing I need is the company working on my RT OS to be sued and disappear. I would much prefer to work with the company that has the patent.
But then again - this is the crux of the matter. RTAI is suffering due to 'patent issues', and RTLinux is not. RTLinux owns the patent, after all. This couldn't possibly be RTAI whining because they cannot get a large enough customer base, could it?
Sure there are all sorts of precidences that this sets. However, I have yet to see any sort of true evolution or development *not* set precidences.
The only real argument I have seen from RTAI folk is that Victor isn't being a proper Open Source priest. This may annoy other Open Source priests, but it does not affect my own opinion of the man. I find the 'Open Source' religion to have no future. I see applications of an Open Source-style license, but as a religion? As an ability to judge a person based on some sort of Open Source-defined morality? Nope... no future.
mark
-- mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |