I'd caution against overreacting to this. InfoCom is exceedingly clueless in attempting to create the perception that they are offering unique value in what is obviously a well-known open-source project. However, the response of creating the perception that Bioclipse has been "pirated" seems unhelpful too, at least given the facts as they appear at present.
Indeed, there are plenty of branded products out there built on the Eclipse platform, reflecting the fact that companies *must* assign a unique label to their products in order to avoid Trademark infringement and distinguish their offerings. Open-source developers unfamiliar with how business works sometimes misconstrue relabeling as an attempt to claim credit -- that isn't what it is about at all. So what are the real issues? A. LEGAL: Is InfoCom meeting their legal obligations associated with redistribution of Bioclipse software? The Copyright holders should immediately (but politely!) ask InfoCom to provide proof that they are in compliance. If they fail to do so, then indignation as well as legal action may well be justified -- but not until then. B. PUBLIC RELATIONS: Isn't InfoCom just being self-destructively silly by not stating upfront that their product is built on Bioclipse? Such actions are sure to upset Bioclipse developers and could even lead to license changes which impede or prohibit commercial use of the platform. That would be bad for everyone, since the healthiest software ecosystems involve both commercial and open-source activities. Likewise, InfoCom's customers may be rather upset when they eventually discover that they have paid for something freely obtainable. That would be bad for InfoCom as well as for their customers! C. STRATEGY: What InfoCom needs to do instead is focus on what they are offering above and beyond Bioclipse. If they are not actually adding unique value (e.g. services, content, Q.C./standardization, add-ons, etc.) then they won't get very far in this marketplace. But if they are delivering extra worthwhile benefits to their customers, and they are complying with Bioclipse license terms, then their adoption of Bioclipse for delivery of proprietary products and/or services would be a good thing for eveyone: it would help to further validate Bioclipse as a platform and save others the trouble of reinventing that particular wheel. Now isn't that the point? It seems to me that InfoCom may simply need some guidance(*) on how to apply open-source code in service to their customers without affronting the open-source commmunity upon which they are relying. Hopefully they will be willing to receive it! Cheers, Warren DeLano, Ph.D. DeLano Scientific LLC (*) from Bruce Perens perhaps? http://perens.com/business/consulting/ related links: http://www.infocomlaboratories.com/ibiotech.htm http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/blogs/murrayrust/?p=1006 > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Craig James > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 9:33 AM > To: Christoph Steinbeck > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Blueobelisk-discuss] Bioclipse pirated > > Christoph Steinbeck wrote: > > I thought I'd bring this up on the Blue Obelisk list. While legally > > probably in a grey zone, it is still interesting in terms of > > integrity and respect for the achievements of others: > > > > A company called InfoCom, located in Arizona, advertises a product > > called iBioTech , which by all evidence is identical with Bioclipse. > > They say their iBioTech product has a plugin for chemoinformatics > > call “bc_cdk†(surprise :-)) and one called “bc_jmol†for 3D > visualization. > > > > Read more at > > http://www.steinbeck-molecular.de/steinblog/ > > I am not a lawyer, but I'm quite sure if there is no license, then the > material is automatically copyrighted under United States and > international law, and nobody but the author(s) can distribute it. > You don't have to put in license or copyright notices -- copyright is > the default. > > If the situation is as you describe (no notices), then it's not a > "gray zone" at all. > > Craig > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Blueobelisk-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blueobelisk-discuss
