Subject: Re: [FYI] Microsoft license spurns open source
From: Seth David Schoen <>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:05:54 -0700

Stephen J. Turnbull writes:

> >>>>> "Ben" == Ben Tilly <> writes:
> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <> wrote:
> >>>>>> "Seth" == Seth David Schoen <> writes:
> >    Seth> The point is that "shared source" is not even remotely
> >    Seth> comparable to open source and provides virtually none of the
> >    Seth> latter's benefits.
> >Don't exaggerate.  Such exaggeration confuses the undecided, or
> >convinces them that we are fanatics or have some sort of undisclosed
> >ulterior motive.
>     Ben> How is this exaggeration?
> [ ... lots of stuff I'll stipulate as true elided ... ]
>     Ben> So I just ticked off the biggest wins for me
> Those last two words are an own goal.

In what I wrote, I should have considered things that other people
might find significant about open source (that I don't, that Ben
apparently doesn't, that we know well the Free Software Foundation
doesn't); some of those are preserved in shared source.  I could make
a list of important benefits from open source which are missing in
shared source (although I think that would bore the audience here); I
would have to struggle to show what remains, yet what remains is
certainly interesting to somebody.

So the question is the best way to talk about how I think shared
source eliminates the significant benefits, without denying that
someone else might think that remaining benefits are significant.
Certainly there are people for whom the shared source and open source
experiences might seem similar.

Seth David Schoen <>  | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp.  | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down:   (CAF)  | not have leisure.  -- Pirke Avot 2:5