Anthony, > FWIW, Linux Australia receives a lot of support from IBM (it's been an > ongoing major sponsor of linux.conf.au), and also actively participates > in topics of copyright and patent reform. As it happens, Rusty Russell > has been our key IP guy for a few years now, and is also an IBM employee.
That was hypothetical example. I don't know for a fact that IBM would withhold donations to a vocally anti-SW-patent organization. I was making an example of why it was necessary to *check* with the member organizations before proceeding. > To put it another way: if PostgreSQL were to think patents are good, > and SPI were to think patents were bad, but PostgreSQL is good; is > there any reason for PostgreSQL to stop using SPI for its finances, > just because they're arguing different sides of an issue in public? Where it would become a critical issue is if it affected PostgreSQL's (or any other member project's) ability to raise funds and/or run their project. And the only way we can know that is if we check with those projects. Are you arguing that it's *not* necessary to check? If not, what are you arguing? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Project Core Team Member (any opinions expressed are my own) _______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.spi-inc.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/spi-general
