🚀 go-pugleaf

My inquiry as to whether others thought a boycott against AT&T
appropriate given their attempt to license part of X Windows, while I
considered it an obvious question, got more attention than I am used
to.  Let me clarify a few points.

1.)  One Emailer asked how could I boycott AT&T and still work on
UNIX.  Actually, thorugh licensees, I would have to, or be breaking
the law against secondary boycotts.  (That is, I believe some law says
you cannot boycott party X for not boycotting party Y.)

2.)  In any case, I don't think a general boycott is a good idea.  I
suggested one against the long distance service.  It would be a more
than a little silly to suggest those working for AT&T all quit, for
example.

3.)  I don't for a second imagine the effect of all those irate over
software patents changing their long distance vendor would be
significant in itself.  In fact, unless we brought the boycott to
AT&T's attention, they probably would not notice.  (And the boycott is
a no-op for those of us who use another long distance vendor already.)

4.)  Such a boycott could have a significant effect nonetheless.
While a small group, we can be influential.  I hope all we need to do
is get AT&T to rethink their approach.

5.)  AT&T record on intellectual property is in general exemplary.
They have shown an excellent sense of their responsibility to the
industry.  (For example, recently with C++).  So far, this one (IMHO)
misstep, represents only a small blot on that record.

6.)  For the moment my long distance vendor remains AT&T.  A boycott
should not be started without careful consideration.  Unless this idea
strikes a chord with a large portion of those worried about software
patents, it would be pointless.  Organizations like the LPF are the
way to go.  That is why the one thing I actually DID was join the LPF.

-- 

Jeffrey Kegler, Independent UNIX Consultant, Algorists, Inc.
jeffrey@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM or uunet!algor2!jeffrey
137 E Fremont AVE #122, Sunnyvale CA 94087