Re: Could Mark Townsend please comment on this question re: Standard Edition

joel garry wrote:
> hpuxrac wrote:
> > Niall Litchfield wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > 4) Are there any potential legal implications for both oracle and
> > > > oracle customers because oracle is shipping a product that has features
> > > > enabled and ready to use that one cannot license?
> > >
> > > Great question, especially for AWR that is adding additional useless
> > > processing overhead (admittedly not much) to SE databases, that is there
> > > is processing going on/storage being used and so on, that SE customers
> > > cannot use. it would be interesting actually to see how AWR in
> > > particular compares with various legislations definitions of computer
> > > misuse.
> > >
> >
> > It would be nice to get this area straightened out without involving
> > the suits.
>
> All your other points are good, but _this_ is just silly. The
> technical issues are the least of it, the licensing issues are almost
> entirely suit-ish.

What exactly do you think is silly in here?

I posed a question and Niall's answer seemed to imply that perhaps oracle was supplying a product that had some potential or real conflicts with "various legislations definitions of computer misuse". I think I have some idea of what Niall was meaning but am not exactly sure. He may have been hinting of possible future legal filings?

Rather than continuing speculation by technical people who don't practice in the legal field what my remark contained was a ( faint ) hope that oracle might take some steps so that customers might be able to license ( or not as they choose ) these packs.

My remark about the suits was intended to be specific about the lawyers involvement not geared toward corporate marketing policy about the licensing choices which is also of course a suit-ish decision. Received on Mon Oct 16 2006 - 16:32:04 CDT