"One of the reasons we've chosen to go with the Eclipse platform, rather than any of the other open source types," she said, "is that [Eclipse] actually has a model where vendors can sell value-added products into it, but still provide the service components."

Isn't this as much about the license of Eclipse (which is generally similar to the Apache license) than it is about the platform? The subtext I read was this:

"One of the reasons we've chosen to go with the Eclipse platform ... is that [Eclipse] will let us sell value-added products based on it for profit while taking advantage of all the OSS work that has gone into it."

As much as it is a Good Thing that big companies like IBM and others are making forays into the OSS world, it's hard for me to swallow the way they cover up their greed with a nice shiny license that lets them use it however they want. Sure, there are other OSS products that are under very similar licenses, and it's all up to the owner on how they want to license it, but in many ways it kills the spirit of OSS that I enjoy to begin with.

On the other hand, it's one hell of a way to start a community - "here, we don't care how you use this code (package it, sell it, etc. as you please), but this part of it we'll make open to everybody." Write a solid base, and let companies have at it.

We American have never fought a war with UK so that why I don't know where it's at.

What? Me fail history and geography?

Nope, it's quite possible. We fought a war with them.

Let's see..

"Although Cisco cannot guarantee the accuracy of all statements in this advisory, all of the facts have been checked to the best of our ability."

This is probably a standard disclaimer in their security documents, but wouldn't you want them to be sure of the accuracy of their statements?

Why can software/hardware companies get way with "We tried our best, honest!" ?