Subject: Re: Proprietary softare (was Re: open source definition)
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Date: 24 Apr 1998 03:06:30 -0000

Scott Goehring writes:
 > I, personally, do not want to deprive the community of these
 > features solely in the interest of our profit.  But I don't think
 > we can rule out doing proprietary work altogether.

The problem with doing proprietary work is what do you do if someone
else pays you to do the same thing?  Or pays you to do the work and
specifically wants it to be freed?  How do you reimplement without a
cleanroom team?  The answer is, if you want to stay out of copyright
trouble, you don't.

 > So the question becomes, what is a good enough reason for a FSB to
 > "go proprietary" for a client?

Depends on what "go proprietary" means.  I've licensed packet drivers
for proprietary copying.  I've never written any proprietary packet
driver code, for the reasons given above.

-- 
-russ <nelson@crynwr.com>  http://web.crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok |   Freedom is the primary
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice |   cause of Peace, Love,
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   |   Truth and Justice.