[News.eclipse.foundation] Re: Overtaker of Eclipse Foundation Inc. possi

[ilias <ilias@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Joerg von Frantzius wrote:
> ilias wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:55:55 +0100, Joerg von Frantzius  
> > <joerg.von.frantzius@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Alright, something like that is what I hoped (and somehow expected from
> > > my subjective impressions), but it is good to have it stated here in
> > > clear terms.
> >
> > Bad news:
> > The Eclipse Foundation can apply at _any_ time a different license to 
> > the  source-code base, which requires license fees.
> > The code so far remains available under the open-source license.
> > This would require an unanimous vote by the board (which is not very  
> > realistic).
>
> So what? Why is that bad news? 

The bad news is for your client, which seems to be afraid about a buyout.

"Today a client of us came up with the question whether it is possible 
that a buyout of the Eclipse Foundation can happen. Are there any legal 
restrictions expressed in some binding statutes that a buyout is not 
possible? I don't know e.g. whether a not-for-profit corporation is 
owned by someone and thus can be bought at all. "

I've pointed out, that a buyout is not even necessary.

> There is no such thing as absolute 
> security in the mathematical sense of absoluteness. 
[...]

If so, why do you place your initial question?

"Given the current state of members of the Director's Board, would it 
e.g. be possible for IBM to have a super-majority and change the bylaws 
according to section 3.9.c of the bylaws, in a way that licenses will 
have to be paid for the use of Eclipse technology? "

> The existing source code would still remain in the hands of the Eclipse 
> Foundation, and would be continued like any other open source project, 
> only without the massive financial backing from IBM. It would still have 
> a comparably *good* backing from companies such as SAP, Red Hat, HP and 
> I don't know who else. 

Of course.

I've pointed this out.

> You can't really blame IBM for their investment, 
> just because they could discontinue it in the future.

I don't blame them.

I just answered your (or your customers) question.

and as stated: this is a _general_ [not eclipse foundation or IBM 
specific] problem with open-source.

> > So, realistically, nothing is secure with the eclipse platform (as 
> > with  nearly every open source system).
>
> Yes. That's life. Nothing really is absolutely secure ;-)

I suggest you to answer this to your client.

.

--
http://lazaridis.com