Although it's easy to resent your implication of duplicity (trickery), I do understand your practical, though rigid, position. Thanks, Steve
--- In [email protected], fred trotter <fred.trot...@...> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Stephen Beller <sbel...@...> wrote: > > > Fred, > > > > This is encouraging and I wish you great success! > > > > Two questions: > > > > 1. How do you define "hybrid vendors" and distinguish them from FOSS > > vendors? > > > Anyone who makes money by supporting FOSS AND by selling proprietary health > software. > > > > > > 2. What roll, if any, do you see for companies having patented > > methodologies? > > > That is largely uncharted territory, but in general I would like to treat > that in a similar fashion to hybrid vendors. They will be included and > welcomed, while their slight bias against our core values will be explicitly > labelled. > > In my experience the FOSS community does not like to treated condescendingly > or tricked. If a vendor disagrees with some of our values, but still wants > to work with us in those areas that they agree with us, we should make that > fall over easy for them to do. I would think the same would hold true to > patents. Do not try to trick us into implementing something that you are > going to later try and charge us for, use standard FOSS patent licensing > techniques and we should be just fine. > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > Steve Beller > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Fred Trotter > http://www.fredtrotter.com > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
