And what are *you* doing to change the world for the better, other than posting flames on blogs you obviously don’t read?

Why is that harmful? Oh right because Universities shouldn’t have to pay for anything and everything should be free.

Nice try! A uni like MIT or Berkeley are making millions a year off their patents but continue to charge so much for tuitition that it puts an education out of the reach of normal, everyday people.

You’re hate against Blackboard has clouded your judgement against the big picture. Education is out of reach for millions of US Citizens. Blog about that. Use your position to make a positive change so that some kid in the Rust Belt can break the poverty cycle and better himself.

It is probably because I personally have taken the wrong conclusion from the fable of the Scorpion and the Frog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog). Most would conclude from the fable that the Frog should never trust the Scorpion. Perhaps a corollary would be for the Frog to never talk to Scorpions. Or perhaps the Frog should proclaim bold public statements about the badness of the Scorpion.

My somewhat warped conclusion is that the best approach is to be immune from Scorpion stings if at all possible. Because the Scorpion can sting you any time - even when there is no cooperation agreed to by the frog.

Because of this conclusion, I am probably more tolerant than most when commercial organizations are just doing “commercial organization things”. On the other hand, I am also more critical than most when it appears that Open Source organizations start to do “commercial organization like things” because I believe that the core values and tenets of Open Source - whether it be GPL values or Apache values - are what protect you from Scorpion stings and allow you to be safely near Scorpions. Note: I am not just talking about the license here - I am talking abut the culture as well.

Refusing to listen or talk when the Scorpion comes up and starts talking - is generally a poor strategy for avoiding scorpion stings.

Sorry to slip into metaphor - it is a bad habit of mine.

If the Foundation doesn’t take a clear stand, then Blackboard can and probably will use the Board’s silence to argue that the company is “collaborating” with “Sakai”. That should not be permitted when Blackboard is still asserting the patent, a behavior that the Foundation has strongly opposed.

The Sakai Community and the Sakai Foundation are not one and the same. I sort-of like your suggestion that the Foundation not invest any *Foundation* resources in helping make something “non-open” happen. However, members of the community can do whatever they decide to do.

However I think that it would be wrong for the Foundation to make such a strong statement completely closing the door on any interaction because of the patent.

Back when I was the Sakai Executive Director, I felt that it was very important to engage potential stakeholders in the Sakai product and community regardless of their use of patents or the openness of their source. Because I felt that open source should be open - open source should be an example of how to win without being protectionist.

Under this principle that I gave to myself - I engaged in many discussions with a number of companies who are notorius for having and using patents and for keeping their source closed. And I even talked to them under NDA terms to help align their strategies w.r.t. Sakai internally before making external commitment statements.

These “bad” companies include: Oracle, Apple, Microsoft, IBM, and others. Also some of the academic members of Sakai hold nasty little patents - I think one of these academic patents is in the top 10 villains on the EFF patent busters effort - but we let Sakai resources benefit Universities that hold and exploit patents that cover our space.

My perspective was that it was not my place to just “good companies” and “bad companies”. Some members of the Sakai Foundation Board and Sakai Community were often concerned when I initially engaged each of these companies as the ED. But overall after a while people relaxed and realized that nothing bad happened to us by talking to Oracle - that we effectively were protected because we were “open” and as long as Sakai stayed true to its own values - consorting with Oracle or Microsoft did not change our values.

And actually working with Oracle has had wonderful benefits - both to Sakai and to the market in general - your leadership in the IMS Learner Information Service - is awesome - Oracle’s investment in a public good is much appreciated - at least by me.

I never look at corporate decisions as “good” or “evil” - they are either “smart” or “dumb”. I think that Oracle’s decision to engage in Sakai and IMS is “smart”. I think that BlackBoard’s engagement of open source is “smart”. I think that BlackBoard’s work in IMS Tools Interoperability is “smart”. I think that the way BlackBoard granted patent immunity to Open Source is “smart”. I think that the way BlackBoard pursued the D2L patent is “dumb”. Not “evil” - not “good” - just “dumb”.

I think that the market impact of the “dumb” BlackBoard decision has already caused negative consequences to BlackBoard - I think some of your earlier posts about dwindling market share are best explained as the results of management mistakes made by BlackBoard. I actually trust the market to punish “dumb” things and reward “smart” things - so my opinion really does not matter.

If I am asked - I always tell companies what I think the “smart” choice should be. I always preface my advice with the following variant of Sarbanes-Oxley: “Thanks for asking for my opinion on this matter, just so you know - I am just a humble academic with no real business experience, but if I were facing this decision, I would ….”