Subject: Re: Opportunity lost? Challenge declined!?
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 12:27:39 +0900

>>>>> "rn" == Russell Nelson <> writes:

    rn> Stephen J. Turnbull writes:

    >> They're coming toward open source, which, though technically
    >> equivalent in the license definition, is _very_ different in
    >> terms of the dynamics.  Note that many of the economic benefits
    >> that Eric pushes apply to published but proprietary source
    >> code, as well as to free software.

    rn> I don't believe this to be true.  The benefits derive from the
    rn> freedom to fork.  Remove that -- and all proprietary code
    rn> removes the freedom to fork -- and you remove the benefits as
    rn> well.

    rn> Very simple test case: BSDI.

Tim gives the theory, I'll just give a better test case:  Crynwyr.  Do
you really mean to tell me that freedom to fork is why you use qmail? :)

And not all proprietary code removes the freedom to fork.  It just ups
the price to greater than zero.

    >> It's the perfect name: "Open Source Software Business."  Maybe
    >> "Published Source Software Business" is a good enough
    >> alternative?

    rn> Why not "Shared Source Software Business"?  You'd get a lot of
    rn> subscribers

Because you "share" with people with whom you have a direct
relationship.  "Open" and "public" imply a catholic approach to

I have been in dialogs with MSFT (although mostly tongue in cheek,
they treated my job application seriously) and MSFT employees with
respect to XEmacs, a pretty canonically free piece of software.  But I
think that's a bad reason to name the list -- I think that just doing
the list right would get us plenty of subscribers

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."