Momentum is strong enough that we would follow developers to a red6 or red7 (or whatever new name it needs) project in no time.
_____ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dominick Accattato Sent: Martes, 21 de Agosto de 2007 04:35 p.m. To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Red5] H.264 codec on Flash player... but not for Red5? Hank, as always I appreciate your comments on these matters. Additionally, I just checked an existing site I created and Sorenson is still streaming fine, and I'd imagine that On2 will as well. I had no doubts that they would as Adobe strives for backward compatibility even though they have made security enhancements that broke existing content in the past. I'm not sure why he wrote that it doesn't support sorenson On 8/21/07, hank williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: 1. I am not clear what name you are saying red5 comes close to infringing. 2. If it does, there are no damages without notice. You cannot sue if you ask someone to change the name and they do. Its not like copyright infringement where any infringement creates a statutory liability. Therefore any intelligent open source project would just change its name. This would not be a smart strategy for eliminating open source and I *strongly* doubt red5 is at any risk from this kind of a plan. Regards, Hank On 8/21/07, Donnacha <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: RE: Trademarks To clarify what I meant, this issue has come up in discussion with some very switched on people but not, I have to stress, anyone in Adobe itself. The context was people in fairly high positions, discussing the tricky problem, faced by many proprietary software makers, of how to counter OSS competition without provoking a publicity backlash; Adobe/Red5 came up as a perfect case study. There was total agreement that the Red5 developers have been meticulous in ensuring that they didn't infringe Adobe's IP but the name itself was identified as their Achilles heal, not necessarily because it infringes a trademark or servicemark, although it may, but because it comes close enough to justify a court case. The case of a claimant against Red5 would not be strong enough to guarantee a win and, therefore, would not be worth taking UNLESS a third party anonymously funded the legal costs as a distraction/FUD tactic, just as Microsoft part-funded SCO's anti-Linux actions. This form of anonymous funding is 100% legal and very common practice among American corporations. In the case of targeting OSS projects, the presumption is that no formal structure is in place to fund a defense and that the costs will be borne by the lead developers with no prospect, in this type of action, of re-couping their costs even if they win - each side eats their own costs. This expensive process massively favors corporations and the vast majority of these disputes never make it to court, never come to public attention. As any such action would be a once-off opportunity and would be held in reserve until it can be used to maximum effect, probably after the project goes 1.0 and a lot of momentum has built up behind the disputed name - being forced to change it at that point would be a serious set-back. When the project was initially launched, I presumed that Red5 was temporary title, a cute Star Wars reference that would soon be replaced with a better name, one for which the .com was still available. I never expected it would last this long, I figured that a _______________________________________________ Red5 mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org _______________________________________________ Red5 mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org -- Dominick Accattato, CTO Infrared5 Inc. www.newviewnetworks.com <http://www.newviewnetworks.com>
_______________________________________________ Red5 mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org
