On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 09:57:49PM -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
>
> >
> >This furthermore points to the "right answer" on this being that
> >individuals that want to express their displeasure about certain
> >political matters ought to simply do so.
> >
> >Expecting the PostgreSQL project to "have an opinion" when it's not an
> >individual is a bit silly.
> >
> >
> I think at the bare minimum, I think that we need to have a statement on
> the web site (more than just a news item) explaining the whole ARC to 2Q
> issue and why we didn't go and ask IBM's permission first. This is a
> testimonial against software patents and is a stand against them, but
> more subtle than many here might want to see.
There is an article covering the ARC saga on General Bits Issue #96.
http://www.varlena.com/GeneralBits/96.php
>
> I also think we should go and ask IBM now for permission for a number of
> reasons:
> 1) It will open the door to go back to ARC if we want.
> 2) It will provide us with proper contacts in case other patent issues
> arise in the future.
> 3) May provide a good way out for IBM regarding publicity they have
> received from it.
> 4) May provide us with some form of immunity from future patent
> lawsuits against other parties.
>
> Best Wishes,
> Chris Travers.
> Metatron Technology Consulting
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
