On Friday 13 May 2005 02:51, Timothy Miller wrote: > On 5/13/05, Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There are a bunch of Red Hatters in the former Cygnus office I > > happen to know are very direct in stating that the logic source for > > the card should be open, and that they will work on it if it is. > > BTW, what one developer or another offers as their conditions for > working on it is MOOT, if their conditions make it unviable to > develop. Let's not adopt an "if I can't have it, nobody can" > attitude here.
It is not that at all. It is "if I can have the source, then I will make it better". And there is of course an element of "and if I cannot, then I have better things to do with my time". > Besides, our objective is to figure out a way to make it open source > AND viable. It doesn't help us any to tell us that some people won't > work on it if we don't open source it. That doesn't address any of > the challenges. Trying to convince Free Software advocates to release > source code is only going to make you look redundant and > condescending. And "I won't work on it if you don't open source it" > just makes people look like a 2-year-olds. > > We are here to discuss specific solutions to specific problems. I am trying to communicate a sense of what the community is thinking about this, from my own personal research. I am pretty sure that there is a formula that satisfies the money side of the equation, while all satisfying the open source side. I will go beyond that and claim that this is in fact the optimal strategy for the project, from the point of view of technical achievement, of market penetration and of financial reward for the founders. Regards, Daniel _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
