On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 12:56, Ben McGinnes wrote: > Further to this, if they really wanted to, SCC could even create a new > incoroporated entity (e.g. HGLFTNOASHFWG, Pty. Ltd.[1]) to sell the > patent to which would, of course, not be bound by any of the decisions > of SCC. Even if it is essentially all the same people. I think so. > Essentially this means that they have provided something to placate > us, Who has it placated? Certainly not me! > but which they can reverse at any point in the future should it > fit a new corporate strategy. From a commercial view point it's quite > reasonable, but from the GPL/development point of view it is > essentially a useless gesture. Even from a commercial point of view it's not reasonable. If someone tried to screw over one of my clients in such a fashion I'd react in the same way. > From a PR point of view it's potentially even more damaging to SCC > (depending on whether the wider geek/development community interprets > it as an honest attempt to resolve the issue or an under-handed > trick). I haven't seen any evidence of honest attempts to resolve the issue from SCC. Russell Coker _______________________________________________ linux-security-module mailing list linux-security-moduleat_private http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jul 27 2002 - 04:37:19 PDT