On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 03:57:59 GMT, Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com> said: > What if (as in this case) it was in the past, and Olafur had no current > or prospective income riding on BIND9, but he did once work for a company > who did some subcontract work related to BIND9? Would he still be tainted? That's OK by me... > Would someone who had derived, or might some day derive, income from such > an "open source" work be tainted as much as someone whose equity or patent > holdings stood to gain from their work or from a certain standards decision? > (I'm thinking of the IBM printing thing a few years ago.) I wasn't paying attention there - were the people involved in the IBM printing thing open about the fact they stood to gain/lose money? I remember that during the IPng design, several router manufacturers were quite detailed about their costs of producing routers that used fixed or variable length addresses, and it's the rare working group where somebody doesn't say at least once "This added feature is a crock because it'll cost my R&D people a bundle"... And I consider that good and valid input to the discussion - if it's expensive, we mau need to reconsider the design... It's just submarine patents and submarine contracts/etc that irk me. ;) /Valdis
Attachment:
pgp00175.pgp
Description: PGP signature