Subject: Re: Successful FSBs
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:20:27 +0900

>>>>> "Tim" == Tim O'Reilly <tim@oreilly.com> writes:

    Tim> By your definition.  I consider the fact that Yahoo!, Amazon,
    Tim> google, and a host of ISPs DON'T consider themselves FSBs to
    Tim> be a MAJOR failure of the free software and open source
    Tim> movement.

Amazon?  A definition of "FSB" that is compatible with holding the
"one click" patent is one I want to drive before I buy.

    Tim> Because they don't think of themselves that way, they don't
    Tim> see that keeping the virtuous circle going is in their
    Tim> business interest.

I have a problem with that argument.  It basically amounts to "for
lack of a name, these companies are totally missing the fundamental
dynamics of their businesses."  I find that unlikely.

As far as I can tell, your argument is equivalent to saying that all
businesses involved in software to date have completely missed the
boat, and fail to recognize the benefits of supporting free software.

What about the MIT/X Consortium, and the very deliberate decision that
OTOH Motif would be proprietary?  How about sharing with more limited
participation, such as IP pools and the MCC?  MPEG, etc?  I think
these companies are very much alive to the possibities for sharing,
and simply have judged that more sharing than they already do is not
good for them.

You're a lot closer to the battle zone than I am, so I take your
opinion as an important data point.  But it needs independent support.

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
 My nostalgia for Icon makes me forget about any of the bad things.  I don't
have much nostalgia for Perl, so its faults I remember.  Scott Gilbert c.l.py