| Lists: | spi-general |
|---|
| From: | "John van V(dot)" <john_van_v(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Raul Miller <raul(at)usatoday(dot)com>, john(at)thinman(dot)com |
| Cc: | Roger R Dingledine <arma(at)mit(dot)edu>, spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org, seul-pub(at)seul(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Red Hat Forms non-Profit Open Source Group |
| Date: | 1999-11-03 13:47:27 |
| Message-ID: | 19991103134727.25592.rocketmail@web801.mail.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox |
| Lists: | spi-general |
Hi, That word we all live by makes me uncomfortable but, the organizations that
I work with (who love debian :) tell my that the term open source is really
OpenSource(tm). Anybody who uses it has to nominally follow GNU principles.
They also say they have lawyers who, supposedly anyway, have teeth.
But that is not my real concern. S/w often companies consist of really clever
people who spend all their free brain cycles thinking up shrewd little plans,
and I dont think there is really a place for that in linux.
A good example of that is the linux version of the MSCE diploma. On the
surface it sounds good but all it really says is that person-a has technical
knowledge of the OS and the network. But can this engineer really think their
way through a process topology problem in the middle of a network disaster ??
Probably not. Does it say that that person will put up stiff resistance to the
migration of untested s/w into a production environment. I always have, but
then the dev managers generally hated me :)
http://www.lxny.org has a lot of links involving political activism in this
area and stuff like patents. Maybe this is an area of concern for SPI.
=====
John van Vlaanderen
#########################################
# CXN, Inc. Contact: #
# john(at)thinman(dot)com, www.thinman.com #
# 1 917 309 7379 (cell, voice mail) #
#########################################
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com