Subject: Re: funding indirect services
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 12:26:10 +0900 (JST)

>>>>> "Rich" == Rich Morin <rdm@cfcl.com> writes:

    Rich> A similar argument to this was made by RMS back in the early
    Rich> days of Cygnus Support.  How, he asked, would the
    Rich> development of GCC be biased by the fact that it was being
    Rich> done to meet specific client's needs?  I don't want to get
    Rich> lost in the specifics of this instance, but I believe his
    Rich> concern was legitimate.

Don't forget to ask the dual question:  how is (volunteer) OSS
development biased by the fact that it neglects the needs of all those
"paying customers"?  That is, those who have either too little skill
or too little time to contribute to the OSS project directly, but
would like to vote with their dollars by paying a contractor to work
on features they want in the project.

But I would prefer to avoid the word "bias", which presumes there is
an "unbiased" point of view.

-- 
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 straight lines for?  "XEmacs rules."