|
|
|
| Authored by: sproggit on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 02:50 AM EDT |
Thank you for helping make my point.
1. To be effective, a deterrant has to be visible. The fact that you confirm my
view that the OIN spends most of it's time "below" the surface, where
it can't be seen, means that it isn't doing it's job properly. It doesn't
understand the psychology of an effective deterrant.
2. The fact that the ban doesn't cover the free implementations of JAVA (I am
sorry I am not aware of the detailed aspects of the OIN Charter) may point to
flaws in it's execution. It shouldn't be necessary to go back and tweak the
original charter each time a new product, package or platform wants to be
included, merely a cases of agreeing the affiliations. [ OK, I concede that
there does need to be a vetting process of some kind, but this should not be
burdensome ].
We could debate this one back and forth all day, but most of that discussion
would likely be irrelevant. The only salient point to make on this topic is the
observation that the OIN has been either unwilling or unable to act
constructively in the instant case. The reasons are secondary: the fact it has
been ineffective is the relevant point.
Note that I didn't say "hasn't acted". It may have done. It just
hasn't had any positive effect. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
