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

[ilias <ilias@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:56:42 +0100, Joerg von Frantzius  
<joerg.von.frantzius@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[moved down]

> ilias schrieb:
[...]

> > > > If so, why do you place your initial question?
> > >
> > > To find out about the probability of any such problem to happen. All I  
> > > already knew is that it wouldn't be 0 (zero).
> >
> > fine.
> >
> > And I gave you some points to evaluate:
> >
> > - Open source projects can change the license at any time.
[...]

> > Asking for licensing fees in future is something that can happen  
> > _easily_.
> >
> > Scenario:
> >   - 2 Foundation members do not see value in the $500.000 membership,  
> > and change to add-in provider membership.
[...]

> > You can ask the eclipse foundation to add a clause in their bylaws  
> > which would disallow "asking for licensing fees for the eclipse core  
> > technology" in the future.
>
> I conclude that our client and us are content with the state of affairs,  
> and you are not.

If I rate from your initial post, you are not "content with the state of  
affairs".

You would be (at least your client) whe the the mentioned clause would be  
added to the bylaws.

> My guess is that you will never be, but it is good that you keep on  
> imagining worst case scenarios and finding loopholes.

This was not a "worst-case" scenario.

> I would only find it unfortunate if your position resulted in Fear,  
> Uncertainty and Despair (FUD) being spread, as, from what I can tell,  
> the Eclipse Foundation does everything that is practically possible in  
> the real world to avoid possible reasons for such fears.

Adding such a clause to the bylaws should be "practically possible".

> So please, beware of FUD!

Discussions like this one can lead to clarification of things and thus  
elimination of "FUD".

.

--
http://lazaridis.com