Very well said. To clarify I find the idea of vendors using a sponsorship position to exclude their competitors from a JUG event despite the wishes of JUG members a very unfortunate and anti-competitive viewpoint for Sun to take.
-Andy On 5/28/03 12:43 PM, "Bill Gooding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I guess I'll weigh in on this, it isn't technical, but > it does bring up some interesting traps that you might > fall into. And since some of it is controversial, > remember "these are just my views, I could be wrong". > My intepretation is rather cynical, but someone has to > defend that view. The disclaimer applies to any post > I make. > > On point 1, even if Jboss is a commercial > organization, so what ? So is Sun, does that mean > they should never be allowed to speak at a java > meeting. To the best extent possible, you should give > everyone who wants to a chance to speak. The > listeners are the final judge. > > On point 2, I don't necessarily think that group > sponsorship is a requirement for giving a talk. Maybe > groups who sponser should be entitled to a place at > the table based on their support. But the oversight > board is responsible to make reasonable judgements on > anyone else they would like to speak. > > I don't know what legal agreement was signed relevant > to sponsorship. But it is *very* important to read > any legal agreement you sign fully. Most legal > agreements have clauses in them that state that the > legal agreeement represents the full product of > negotiations on the transaction. That really means > that a salesman can say absolutely anything he wants > to you to get you to sign an agreement. Once you have > signed it, the lawyers will say anything the salesman > said is irrelevant. I know this is a little bit of a > radical interpretation, and there are some "deceptive > business practice laws", but I think they just give > people a false sense of security and are useless. The > only recent application of them was getting rid of the > psychic friends network. Someone finally decided it's > a little deceptive to base a business model on 1. the > existance of psychic phonomenon and 2. the idea that > it could be transmitted though an electromagnetic > field. And that may not even be the reason they > eliminated it. So these rules don't have much impact. > > In the java world, these things also apply. It > doesn't matter if someone says they are an engineer. > They are still selling, so they are a salesman. They > will tell you half the story, in order to get you to > sign. You must do your own homework. And there are > counterintuitive agreements in the java world. The > J2EE containter shootout brought out the fact that BEA > doesn't want you doing comparisons if you use BEA. I > do have some technical sympathy for the argument they > make (comparisons are difficult). But it does look > suspicious and that may not be the only reason it is > in the legal agreement. > > Always read the legal agreement first. And assume it > will be used against you. Let the buyer beware. > > I also thought the point about academic institutions > was pretty funny. It may be literally true they are > not sponsored by companies, but that's only half the > story. For years, companies have been donating > equipment to schools to influence the purchasing > habits of students. The universities have been a > battleground over OS for years. When ms donates > computers, I don't think they run Linux and ms may try > to stop them from running Linux using a legal > agreement. > > On point 3, so what if it is not certified. Lots of > very intelligent people are not "certified". That > doesn't mean anything. Alot of certifications are > just a way for vendors to make more money. I believe > in the case of the Sun J2EE container certification, > there was an original policy of "pay to play". To put > it mildly, some people in the apache organization were > disappointed with this policy. Certification isn't > the issue, it is the java board's responsibility to > pick the talks that would interest its members given > time, place, and manner constraints. > > This may come off a little negative, and there may be > a salesmen with integrity. And I don't have anything > against the commercial presenters at the J2EE > shootout. But it is still your responsibility to > validate what they say independently and ask the tough > questions. Hopefully, that what a good jug allows you > to do. > > --- "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> What do you guys think of this: >> >> > http://www.shiftat.com/blog/page/werner/20030527#sun_reaffirms_no_jboss_at >> >> Note that as long as I'm president, the TriJUG won't >> put up with this kind >> of thing. >> > > Good thing you won't. If you were willing to put up > with this sort of thing, you would have lost my vote > for president. Not that my vote matters much. > > Bill Gooding > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). > http://calendar.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > Juglist mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org -- Andrew C. Oliver http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI http://jakarta.apache.org/poi For Java and Excel, Got POI? _______________________________________________ Juglist mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org
