"smaffulli@inwind.it"smaffulli@inwind.it writes:
Again, make believe it: one thing that everybody says is "sell services on open source (or free software)" and VA just said they can't.
Did VA's background as a hardware company influence this? Is their setup so tuned towards selling products that they can't sell services?
that sounds like a good point, thanks. It still leaves exposed the question ESR backing up such a move: can we consider this as the final act of the Open Source Initiative? Is OSI over now? Shall we say it? Or who else should claim the end of OSI?
On a more general point, I think we need a "Linuxmanship"-style page for free software. I'm off to see what's out there... any got some suggestions? (Basic question: how do we promote free software to each class of user? There's the business markets at each level and the users of each type.)
What do you mean with "Linuxmanship"-style page? I wrote a very little paper (in Italian, though) on why it is worth releasing new software as Free Software. I wrote it having in mind developers and explains shortly why it is not worth considering other proprietary licenses and means of distribution like free/shareware. http://www.linuxvalley.it/columns/columns.php?IdCol=109 Originally i wrote that article in English to advocate the release of a specific piece of software under the GPL.
Could you explain better your idea as I am not sure I understood you, sorry.
Regards stef
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 04:02:21PM +0200, smaffulli@inwind.it wrote:
Did VA's background as a hardware company influence this? Is their setup so tuned towards selling products that they can't sell services?
that sounds like a good point, thanks. It still leaves exposed the question ESR backing up such a move: can we consider this as the final act of the Open Source Initiative? Is OSI over now? Shall we say it? Or who else should claim the end of OSI?
You do realise that ESR is a board member of VA Linux? He owns / was given stock in the company, and sits as a director IIRC. Much like RMS being CEO (Chief Ethics Officer ;) of FreeDevelopers. Except RMS wouldn't back FreeDevelopers up if they released non-Free software :)
On a more general point, I think we need a "Linuxmanship"-style page for free software. I'm off to see what's out there... any got some
What do you mean with "Linuxmanship"-style page?
Linuxmanship was a paper about advocating Linux in a positive manner, IIRC. I didn't particularly like it much myself - referring to Windows as a 'legacy' system I didn't think would work, for example - but the basic ideas are spot on: don't negatively campaign, don't use terms like Winblows, M$, etc. Be adult and professional: Linux [Free Software] is good enough to stand up to arguments on its own.
Cheers,
Alex.
--
home@alexhudson.com:
You do realise that ESR is a board member of VA Linux? He owns / was given stock in the company, and sits as a director IIRC. Much like RMS being CEO (Chief Ethics Officer ;) of FreeDevelopers. Except RMS wouldn't back FreeDevelopers up if they released non-Free software :)
I do realise, that is why I am more angry with ESR. And that is why I think it is more important from now on to avoid any sort of incomprehension between OS and FS. From what ESR said, Microsoft Shared Source may well be acceptable and that is not what we want.
Linuxmanship was a paper about advocating Linux in a positive manner, IIRC. I didn't particularly like it much myself - referring to Windows as a 'legacy' system I didn't think would work, for example - but the basic ideas are spot on: don't negatively campaign, don't use terms like Winblows, M$, etc. Be adult and professional: Linux [Free Software] is good enough to stand up to arguments on its own.
I missed that paper, thank you for the explanation (and for the link).
regards