<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The overall goal is to remove a barrier to more widespread use of > Open Source - growing the mindshare dedicated to it and potentially > shrinking the mindshare dedicated to commercially-produced software.
While I don't agree with the dichotomy you present -- much of the free software available, especially among the mature and popular projects, is commercially produced, so the two evidently aren't opposed -- I laud your goal of attempting to spread the use of free software at the expense of non-free software. > A couple of responders to my earlier notes wrote something like "do > you ask the same thing of closed source vendors?" The answer is "no, > not at present" The obvious thing to note at that point, then, is that an organisation which applies such a double standard to its vendors -- existing software vendors can continue to have appallingly obscure processes and not be held accountable, but free software's outstandingly open processes need to spend volunteer effort to become even *more* open to become worthy of attention -- needs to evolve or die. A less obvious thing to note is that the free software model allows anyone to get involved and do the work they perceive needs doing, or to sponsor it to make it happen. If an organisation needs a whole lot of work put in to create or improve the types of documents it likes to see, what is stopping that organisation from doing so, or offering compensation for others to do so? -- \ "For mad scientists who keep brains in jars, here's a tip: why | `\ not add a slice of lemon to each jar, for freshness?" -- Jack | _o__) Handey | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
