[Foundation-l] Google Wave and Wikimedia projects

Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Wed Jun 3 05:40:02 UTC 2009


Hoi,
The good news in this blogentry is that people outside of Google have access
to it. When you read the text at readwriteweb, you will not see the word
wiki once. You read the question what use the history tool will have ...
exactly one of the things that would make a big difference for us. All
things considered, this review is written by someone who seems not to be
involved in the Wiki world.

On a different note, the first code to bring MediaWiki content in a Wave has
been written. We would love to test it. Can someone get us access to the
Wave developer environment???
Thanks,
        GerardM

2009/6/3 Steven Walling <steven.walling at gmail.com>

> FYI everyone, I let Frederic at ReadWriteWeb know that there was some
> interest from Wikimedians about Wave integration, and he kindly
> linked<
> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_wave_our_first_hands-on_impressions.php
> >to
> a sample of the thread in his post about his impressions after a demo.
> The unfortunate side is that his general impression is that it was more
> like
> super enahnced email/IM than wiki.
>
> Steven Walling
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org
> >wrote:
>
> > Robert Rohde wrote:
> > > Assuming Google is intending to be "not evil" about this, I would
> > > guess the point of the intellectual property (e.g. patents and
> > > trademarks) is to prevent people from creating things that are called
> > > and/or identify themselves as Wave servers and yet don't conform to
> > > the communications protocol.  And there is a reasonable point there.
> > > Regardless of what features and services a server might offer, it is
> > > still important that the underlying communications protocol be
> > > something that all parties can make sense of, otherwise your network
> > > gets bogged down in gibberish.
> > >
> > > Anyway, that's the optimistic interpretation.
> >
> > The optimistic interpretation is that it is what is called a
> > "defensive patent", and that they don't intend to enforce it at all.
> > The USPTO is notoriously bad at finding related work that doesn't come
> > up when they search their own patent database, so a defensive patent
> > can be useful to prevent similar patents being registered by
> > competitors. It may also be useful to strike down future patents in
> > court.
> >
> > Red Hat, for instance, have taken this approach:
> > https://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html
> >
> > Some people have suggested that Wikimedia should register some
> > defensive patents, although they probably didn't realise how much time
> > and money is involved in registering and maintaining the things.
> >
> > -- Tim Starling
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


More information about the foundation-l mailing list