Brian Behlendorf writes:
 > Right.  I think in so far as it's been OSI's role to evangelize Open
 > Source, it should also be its role to advise companies when an Open Source
 > approach may not be the best one to take.  I, too, fear an "open source
 > winter", by which I mean a failure of a series of high-profile experiments
 > that causes companies to either denounce publicly the approach, or
 > privately have enough distaste for it that they don't attempt new Open
 > Source projects.

Well, that's why we have a trademark on Open Source(tm).  We intend to
limit use of it to those projects which we expect to be successful --
that is, those for which programmer freedom is an important and
necessary characteristic.  Maybe we don't talk about it all the
time--maybe we emphasize the benefits (as perceived by the people
we're marketing the idea to), but it's *got* to be there.

We can only get the benefits of Open Source if it's free software.

 > I think there's one major aspect of OSI's approach that could use
 > reconsideration.  I don't think that it's the software companies who
 > should be lobbied to open-source their code.  I think it's their large
 > *customers* who should be approached, explained the merits of having
 > control over their software, etc etc.

Damn good idea.  Would that you were on the board....

 > The real problem I'd like to head off is "too much code, too few
 > developers".  I think we can increase the developer pool by proving to
 > these non-software-companies that yes, there's a good reason why they
 > should hire someone to develop public software.  

Didn't somebody do a study and decide that the vast majority of
software was written for in-house use?

-- 
-russ nelson <rn-sig@crynwr.com>  http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok |   There is good evidence
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice |   that freedom is the
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   |   cause of world peace.