Re: [Handhelds] RE: [iPAQ] pimPAQ is work in progress

On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 11:56:13AM -0800, Wayland Bruns wrote:
> Edward Muller wrote:
> > Agreed 100%. I did talk to the Companionlink people as well (as did others I
> > hear), and they have no idea how to deal in the OpenSource world. I mention
> > this because they are the manufacturer of Sync software for windows.
> >
> > My thoughts are to hijack the Pilot stuff for now and have the ipaq pretend
> > to be a Palm Pilot. This give us sync capability to Linux desktops
>
> Edward,
>
> I'm sorry I gave you the impression we had no idea how to handle the
> open source world. The impression I should have given is that in the
> range of Linux PDA solutions there is room for both open source and also
> proprietary solutions which may give different levels of capability and
> support.
>
> The subsequent proposal to deconstruct another company's intellectual
> property is unfortunate. I think all programmers should recognize the
> value of software whether or not it is GPL or open source. When a
> company like Palm creates an innovative system, they have the legal
> right to decide how and who to release it. A hotsync hack may seem
> expedient, but it is not legal or ethical.
>

Mr. Burns -

I'm afraid your characterization of Mr. Muller's suggestion to 'hijack
the Pilot stuff' as some sort of intellectual property theft indicates
all too clearly that his characterization of your company as having
'no idea how to deal in the OpenSource world' is reasonably accurate.

While his use of the verb 'hijack' may be unfortunate, he in no way
suggests any illegal activity. Even if Palm did not provide the necessary
protocol information (which they do), his suggestion is to (at worst)
reverse engineer an existing protocol to provide compatible software or
hardware. This type of reverse engineering is protected in Europe, and has
recently been ruled as legally protected in the U.S. as well. Admittedly,
the law in the U.S. in this area is currently contradictory and in a state
of flux. Regardless, your assumption of the illegality of Mr. Muller's
suggestion, based on your flawed assumption that Palm, Inc. was attempting
to keep their innovative system proprietary, speaks volumes regarding
your attitude toward the Open Source community.

But Palm, Inc., seems to understand Open Source better than you,
Mr. Burns. They have long been very open with information, fostering
independent development of software both on the PalmOS platform itself,
and on a variety of other host platforms. I even contend that this
openness has given them the dominant position in the PDA market, even in
the face of repeated attempts of larger competitors with arguably better
hardware to dethrone them. But that is an argument for another time.

So, seek not to protect Palm, Inc.'s IP from the evil predations of
Mr. Muller and his ilk: the rightful owner has already spoken.

Ross Reedstrom
Received on Mon Feb 5 12:57:10 2001