Subject: Re: FSBs and client-server
From: kmself@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 13:49:28 -0700
Thu, 25 May 2000 13:49:28 -0700
On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 12:13:42PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On 25 May 2000, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > In other words, to really hammer the point home, what I as a customer
> > want from an ASP is not necessarily an open source solution.  What I
> > want is a common data format.
> 
> And I'll contend that a "common" data format isn't really common until
> there is a reference open source solution behind it - or more precisely,
> the best path to ensuring common APIs is common code.  I think there's a
> pretty good mapping between successful standards and reference code that
> implement those standards.  This is a theorem I've got no time to put more
> factual justification behind other than an intuition, but I'd love to see
> a quantitative study on this.  But it seemed to make sense to a lot of
> people when we used it as a justification for starting xml.apache.org.

Now where have I heard this before?  <g>

Brian and I were debating (mildly) benefits of various licensing models
recently.  He made a point I'm still mulling over WRT the BSD/MIT
license -- it's a very strong vehicle for promoting adoption of an open
standard.  Because these licenses allow both free and proprietary
modifications to the codebase, a standard can be proposed, implemented
in a free solution, while still being available for proprietary
implementation from the same code base.

I made specific reference to the ongoing issue of proprietary
incompatible Kerberos extensions by Microsoft as throwing a bit of a
wrench into this concept, though IMO the problem is one not of software
implementations but of protecting the integrity of the protocol itself.
I've since read that the Kerberos spec is being reworked to address (and
exclude) the extensions Microsoft has made to it.  Ian Taylor may have
some more information on this as I believe he was involved with
Kerberos.  This makes the Kerberos problem slightly different from what
Brian had been discussing -- integrity rather than adoption.

I'll admit my own SW licensing preference is GPL or LGPL, though I
prefer to think of it as a tolerant sort of a preference.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>         http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
  Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.                       http://www.opensales.org
   What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?      Debian GNU/Linux rocks!
     http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/      K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org
GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595  DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0


["application/pgp-signature" not shown]