From: Jeff Bone (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Sep 18 2000 - 10:46:52 PDT
Dave Winer wrote:
> I refer you to the discussion on discuss.userland.com re the logic you and
> others use re open source.
Thoroughly confused? I think you're confusing your principals, Dave. Last
thing I released open source was a nasty afternoon hack called "mudtool" back in
1991 or so. I'm no GPL zealot, no open source revolutionary, though I'm quite
happy that people keep shipping all this great free stuff.
Methinks the problem you're having is purely definitional. There are lots of
sets of axioms, lots of subtopics and equally valid points of view. Arguing
about what's Open Source and what's not is like arguing about whether number
theory or category theory is the "One True Math." Or, more correctly, "the One
True Religion." Just like you've got to leave all those nasty CoC people who
think they're they only ones going to heaven alone, likewise why not just ignore
the Open Sourcetistas?
> It is a past tense thing, in the sense that the roadblocks it put up are
> gone, kaput, no longer in the way.
> We're able to work with other developers
> without the nasty bullshit getting in the way. Sure we share source code,
> and we're slaves too, and we love it. We have cathedrals and bazaars, and
> users, and they help us.
> There's nothing new there, after all the michegas is sorted through, the
> things people say about open source apply to commercial development as well.
> We've been doing this for generations.
Is there a *point,* Dave? ;-)
> Rather than being a revolution, it's lined some peoples' pockets nicely, and
> the software development world continues to be filled with hard working
> people doing it for love.
...and nobody would do it if they didn't love it. :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 18 2000 - 10:44:53 PDT