On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Alexis Richardson <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:alexis.richardson@gmail.com">alexis.richardson@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">

If the IETF are happy with it, then I am.</blockquote></div><br>I hate to be the one to break it to you but even RAND is completely and utterly incompatible with <a href="http://www.rabbitmq.com/">your business model</a> as well as those of many of the participants on this list. Are you sure AMQP doesn&#39;t tread on any patents, possibly &quot;conveniently overlooked&quot; by your competitors? Need I remind you of the OpenSEMP debacle at the CCIF goat rodeo?<br>
<br>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 &quot;reasonable and non-descriminatory&quot; fees (which typically only apply to large scale standards like MP3).<br>
<br>I&#39;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&#39;re not.<br><br>Sam<br><br>