On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:48 AM, SM <s...@resistor.net> wrote: > Hola Arturo, > > At 07:34 19-08-2013, Arturo Servin wrote: > >> Academic might work. "Open source" not so much as other >> mentioned. Does >> "Big Corporation" doing Open Source apply? >> >> I was tempted to propose "non-profit", but also there are >> organizations >> with large budgets. And profit driven ones with not much money. >> > > "Open source" is difficult. As people pointed out "open source" does not > necessarily mean free. "open source" does not necessarily mean > "non-profit". I used the term loosely. If hypothetically speaking, there > was formal action, a clearer term might be needed. > > Irrespective of my views, "big corporation" is what helps the IETF > operate. If "big corporation" doing open source applies it will become a > problem for the IETF. The main issue is why should the IETF subsidize a > particular group. It can also be argued that it is not fair to subsidize a > particular group. >
If getting open source implementations is a desirable goal then the way to address that goal is for ISOC or other parties with funds to provide bursaries to the developers. Isn't that the reason they got the $$$ .org money? -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
