Subject: Re: Successful FSBs
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 03:45:46 +0900

>>>>> "Benjamin" == Benjamin J Tilly <" <ben_tilly@operamail.com>> writes:

    Benjamin> If that was true, then you would have expected to see
    Benjamin> more successes with "almost open" licenses like Sun's
    Benjamin> Community Source License.  But they have uniformly
    Benjamin> failed abysmally.

Oh?  I wonder what the good folks at Aladdin and Sleepycat and
TrollTech and MySQL and original ssh would say to that.  Not to
mention Dennis Ritchie and company, RSA (a "success" in spite of
themselves), the MPEG patent-holders (ditto), Andy Tanenbaum, ....

    Benjamin> My belief is that the blatant power grab

You mean the immediate appearance of the Prophet Stallman to pronounce
maledictions on the apostates?  ;-)

But you're missing my point---"Tim is right; let's not draw boundaries
without need."  Of course free software has advantages over "published
source" in supporting communities, etc.  I certainly would hope that
the OSI would advocate _free_ software as strongly as possible, too,
whatever definition of "open" they choose.  Both because FS is PC, and
because it is socially beneficial.

But having a nice "halo word" like "open" available would make it
easier to discuss just which proprietary rights "I wish I could just
call it `open' source" can retain and still [form communities|generate
business|...].  Instead, any such line of thought has to first defend
itself from the (absolutely correct, on the current definitions)
accusation that "that's not free/open".

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.