Subject: Re: Software Foundation
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:21:11 +0900

>>>>> "Ron" == Ron Lancaster <doc@firelord.net> writes:

    Ron> Quoting a friend, "... Open source implementations are free
    Ron> to evolve in a way that commercially-developed code never can."

And what does your friend make of XFree86?  And the way X.org was
forced to abort its attempt to proprietize the mainline X sources,
accompanied by the opening of Motif?  X11 has lots of problems, but I
don't think they would have been fixed by having kicked out the
commercial vendors at an early stage.

"Commercial" != "proprietary".  "Commercial open source" simply means
that _some_ developers delegate the specification of requirements to
non-developers.  Others can do what they want, refactor, fork, ....

    Ron> And [a software foundation] works to guarantee the quality of
    Ron> the projects that are members of the foundation.

    Ron> Given that donations and software foundations do not
    Ron> influence the quality,

Oops.  I think you need to think a little more carefully.  I know what
you're saying, but when an apparent contradiction arises _this_
quickly, you must worry about the reliability of any conclusions.

    Ron> Are there other examples other than the Apache Foundation?

Python Foundation, also Python Business Activity.  They're separate.

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.