In any case, the issue of which licensed works the OGF may derive work
from, is a question for the OGF.

Just because OGF permits something does not mean that we should to do it, especially if detrimental to our users. I'm not going to waste any more cycles on this discussion - anything other than RF is patent nonsense (so to speak).

Sam

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net> wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Alexis Richardson
> <alexis.richardson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If the IETF are happy with it, then I am.
>
> I hate to be the one to break it to you but even RAND is completely and
> utterly incompatible with your business model as well as those of many of
> the participants on this list. Are you sure AMQP doesn't tread on any
> patents, possibly "conveniently overlooked" by your competitors? Need I
> remind you of the OpenSEMP debacle at the CCIF goat rodeo?
>
> The patents that litter the IP wasteland are like land mines - if we fail to
> exercise our duty of care to our users and end up stepping on one then the
> licensing fees will be determined by lawsuits, not "reasonable and
> non-descriminatory" fees (which typically only apply to large scale
> standards like MP3).
>
> I'm surprised this topic was deemed worthy of discussion... if we were doing
> something hard like standardising autonomic scaling algorithms then fair
> enough, but we're not.
>
> Sam
>
>