Subject: Re: towards a broader definition of an FSB
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:16:14 +0900

>>>>> "Forrest" == Forrest J Cavalier, <Forrest> writes:

    Forrest> Since you brought it up, (and have the experience to
    Forrest> comment,) do you have estimates or hard numbers to
    Forrest> justify that keeping the add-on proprietary

We need to say "how proprietary", I think.  The standard definition
simply means "rights reserved until you buy them", ie non-free.  So I
see the Aladdin and Sleepycat strategies as a subset of "proprietary".
You seem to be thinking "trade secret" (such as closed source binaries
or ASP).  I'm not sure what Larry meant.

    Forrest> is a business necessity?

Nothing is a business necessity except customers.  ;-)

    Forrest> I never believe the "lost sales" numbers coming out of
    Forrest> the SPA or the RIAA or similar groups.

And you shouldn't.  The actual number is probably much smaller.
However, in principle it could be substantially larger, too.  I'm 99%
convinced it's smaller, though, because if they had evidence that
would persuade an economist not on retainer to them, I'm sure they'd
use the larger numbers.

In any case, the numbers are big, because they're nearly pure profit.
Stolen copies are going to customers who have already been "marketed",
and distribution costs would be marginal.

Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
 My nostalgia for Icon makes me forget about any of the bad things.  I don't
have much nostalgia for Perl, so its faults I remember.  Scott Gilbert