On 5/13/05, Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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".
Well, then, we're in agreement. When they get the source, they can improve it. Until then, they cannot. > > > 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 KNOW what the community is thinking! I get emails on it every day! > I am pretty sure that there > is a formula that satisfies the money side of the equation, while all > satisfying the open source side. Pretty sure? I have a formula that works, but it doesn't involve releasing the RTL until we've sold certain volumes. And you're pretty sure an alternative exists? I too am pretty sure an alternative exists. I just have absolutely no idea what it is. > 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. Lots of people claim it's an optimal strategy. They just don't back up that claim with any facts. Hell, they don't even back it up with any coherent conjecture. They're just "pretty sure" it'll work. Pretty sure doesn't work for investors. _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
