| From: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: How to handle C&D's? |
| Date: | 2008-10-24 15:05:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20081024150532.GD5539@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:14:12AM -0400, Joshua Kramer wrote:
> 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?
I think such cases have to be dealt with case by case, for exactly the
reasons that the rest of your message discusses. And the cost of
doing this case by case, and the way that would (fail to) scale, is
exactly the reason I think it's a bad idea to go looking for the
trouble.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(at)commandprompt(dot)com
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua Kramer | 2008-10-24 15:14:12 | How to handle C&D's? |
| Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2008-10-24 13:28:28 | specificity of claims (was: SEPostgres - on track for 8.4?) |