Subject: Re: Successful FSBs
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 01:53:08 +0900

>>>>> "Forrest" == Forrest J Cavalier, <Forrest> writes:

    sjt> I think you're overestimating how much [reuse] you've
    sjt> accomplished.  But be that as it may....

(Can't your mailer produce References or In-Reply-To headers?  I often
want to check exactly what the source wrote in context, presence of
those headers makes it a lot easier.)

    Forrest> I think there is an accomplishment.

I wrote "overestimate", I meant "overestimate."  Certainly open source
software increases reuse.  That's by definition.

    Forrest> without invoking a (formal) purchasing process.

This is, of course, the killer _dis_advantage of free software.  Ask
Peter Deutsch and Keith Bostic.  Or consider that the whole point of
the "IBM BIOS" thread is that "proprietary" was not always synonymous
with "closed source."

I've always thought it a shame that the OSI didn't seize the obvious
opportunity to divorce "non-closed" from "non-proprietary."  From an
engineering standpoint, all the benefits of free software stem from
its non-closed-ness.  Non-proprietary has nothing to do with it, that
I can think of at the moment, anyway.

-- 
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.