From: Charles S. Kerr (charles@skywalker.ucs.ou.edu)
Date: Tue Sep 19 2000 - 16:28:32 PDT
>>> I think terminology is as important as license agreements. I am not a
>>> "closed-source developer", a term that I consider perjorative and
>>> negative.
>> "closed-source" isn't pejoriative or negative; it's a fact. My day job
>> is closed source too. They're not mutually exclusive states. <shrug>
>> Anyway there was no offense meant so for the purposes of my original
>> letter just replace it with "someone who hadn't been closely watching
>> the free software developments on Unix in the pre-Linux 90's". :)
> Oy. If only you knew.
> We ship a lot of source in our "closed source" product.
> Wouldn't it be nice if people avoided putting labels on each other?
> A good way to avoid misunderstandings.
That's two (or three, if you count a mention on your DG) responses you've
made now, all of which are completely orthogonal to my original letter.
Instead you've focused on the single phrase "closed source developer".
You've said that the "roadblocks are gone, and that developers can now
work together without the nasty bullshit getting in the way", but I'm having
trouble even having a conversation with you. :)
cheers,
Charles
PS. What roadblocks?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 19 2000 - 16:36:11 PDT