Subject: OT-ness and a new list? (Was: Opportunity lost?...)
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 17:36:13 +0900

>>>>> "Adam" == Adam Theo <> writes:

    Adam> with that said, i must make sure to clarify what mr turnbull
    Adam> meant in his above post. did you mean the discussion of
    Adam> "proprietary" (using your definition of the word you give)
    Adam> should have it;s own list? just want to make sure i didn't
    Adam> read this wrong.

I think everything should have its own list ;-).  Whether FSB members
"should" want to participate in such lists would depend on their
personal goals and the topic of the list.

I doubt many would be attracted to discussion of your VYP or OSFAF
models (except to oppose them ;-), as they effectively restrict
everyone's freedom to share modifications.  I would imagine most
enthusiasm would be for (a) a newbie's list (cf Tim O'Reilly's posts)
and (b) a "near-free" license list with discussion focused on just how
few restrictions you need to add to a given free license to make
a living, while still distributing source to as many developers as
possible, and permitting modification and redistribution as much as

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."