Subject: Re: [FYI] Microsoft license spurns open source
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 23:25:10 +0900

Sorry, keyboard bounce on C-c C-c and off it went....

>>>>> "Ben" == Ben Tilly <Ben_Tilly@trepp.com> writes:

    Ben> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:

    >>>>>>> "Seth" == Seth David Schoen <schoen@loyalty.org> writes:

    Seth> The point is that "shared source" is not even remotely
    Seth> comparable to open source and provides virtually none of the
    Seth> latter's benefits.

    >> Don't exaggerate.  Such exaggeration confuses the undecided, or
    >> convinces them that we are fanatics or have some sort of
    >> undisclosed ulterior motive.

    Ben> How is this exaggeration?

[ ... lots of true stuff elided ... ]

    Ben> So I just ticked off the biggest wins for me

Those last two words are an own goal.  Who are you to decide that
_your_ values apply for me?  Or for the "undecided"?

That's precisely what I meant by "fanatic."

    Ben> in open source, and I am dubious that we will see any of them
    Ben> in shared source.

One example: patent pools work fairly well, within the constraints of
the patent system as given.  Shared source could work out similarly
well for a selected class of oligopolists in mutual back-scratching
arrangements.  But this will never appear on _your_ list of (partial)
wins, even though they clearly are a win (cost reduction) compared to
case by case licensing.

Open source is indubitably better; that doesn't mean that shared
source has _no benefits to anyone_.  That's the exaggeration I object
to.


-- 
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."