On 09/06/06, Chris Croughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 08:40:01PM +0100, Dave wrote:
> On 09/06/06, Shane M. Coughlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Exclusivity of use and support should perhaps be secondary.
>
> I basically agree, but instead of it being secondary it should be of
> primary status, with non-exclusive members allowed but given overtly
> secondary status.
I disagree, making it a secondary status will still put off businesses
who may have most of their work in Free Software but have obligations to
support old proprietary software or for that matter may be transitioning
to Free Software
Or it might persuade the former to finally upgrade those clients away
from old software, and persuade the latter to complete their
transition.
Fanaticism shoots itself in the foot,
it puts off more people than it encourages (I've seen this with the GPL,
with companies putting a blanket ban on any GPL source being used
anywhere in case it infects things which they are contractually required
to heep secret, where they can quite happily use BSD and other free
licenced code because it doesn't insist that their stuff also be made
free).
Those companies are confused: http://www.rosenlaw.com/html/GPL.PDF etc
That GPL is used for at least 70% of Free code suggests it does not
put off more people than it encourages.
--
Regards,
Dave
_______________________________________________
Fsfe-uk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
