Subject: Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 08:26:07 -0400

Sean Chittenden scripsit:

> Agreed.  Simply trying to point out that there are several different
> points of views surrounding software development and the two biggest,
> IMHO, are those who doodle out code for personal or internal
> consumption, and those who are trying to turn a commercial product.

<flame>
I resent and repel this conclusion.  I have worked in this industry
for more than 25 years providing software for my employers, none of
which has had any resale value.  I am not "doodling out code".
In the case of my current employer, the code I wrote is essential to
that particular portion of their business, but the only reason I
didn't suggest it be open-sourced is that I think it's far too imbued
with Reuters-specific ways of doing business, and of no real use to anyone
else.

Reuters lives or dies by the software it writes, but we don't sell
software.  What we sell is accurate, fast, and unbiased news and
information.  *That's* our commercial product.  Implying that people who
write the software that supports it are "doodling" is insulting
and unwarranted.
</flame>

-- 
John Cowan                              <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
http://www.reutershealth.com            http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
                .e'osai ko sarji la lojban.
                Please support Lojban!          http://www.lojban.org
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3