Subject: Re: ways of funding
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 09:37:09 +0900 (JST)

>>>>> "Ben" == Ben Tilly <> writes:

    Ben> Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

    >> Let's put it this way.  Would you dare use a VHLL that simply
    >> downloaded a bunch of modules from CPAN and copied them into a
    >> big script with some glue code you write, [...].  But that's
    >> exactly what you do with libc, isn't it?

    Ben> That is a bogus comparison and you know it.

It is not, not for my purposes.  Some people are claiming an order of
magnitude improvement.  For free software to dominate the whole market 
(not 100% market share, but something bigger than 1/3) given the
revenue advantage that proprietary software has in financing
development, I'd say that is needed.  What do you think?

If you want to say I'm using the word "reuse" incorrectly, fine, I'll
use a different word.  But this is compatible with Fred Brooks and Ed
Yourdon's usage in the context of discussing silver bullets.  And we
need one, to slay the revenue werewolf.

    Ben> But I will go on record saying that I can and do trust the
    Ben> portion of CPAN shipped as a standard library.  And I do
    Ben> trust large chunks that I know are widely used.

Good, good, that's the kind of thing I need to hear.

Is that "standard library" portion bigger than the larger of the
proprietary libraries?  How broad coverage do those large chunks give?

To what extent are those libraries GPL, and thus not available to
proprietary developers without an (expensive) strategy rethink?

    Ben> And I trust that without looking at the code.

That _is_ my definition of "trust."

University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
What are those two straight lines for?  "Free software rules."