On 6 Jun 2011, at 18:43, Benson Margulies wrote:
> The expression 'land-grab' in here bothers me.
>
> I understand (if not agree with) the 'deep philosophy justification'
> of the FSF for a particular licensing strategy.
>
> I understand the views of individuals who don't want to benefit
> corp
Good one :-)
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 14:11, Donald Whytock wrote:
> Actually, "land-grab" isn't an invalid analogy. Think of a
> mountain...Imagine some enterprising nonprof manages to buy a scenic
> mountain. A cadre of volunteers sees to it, cleaning up litter and
> the occasional forest fire.
Actually, "land-grab" isn't an invalid analogy. Think of a
mountain...Imagine some enterprising nonprof manages to buy a scenic
mountain. A cadre of volunteers sees to it, cleaning up litter and
the occasional forest fire. The nonprof opens up the mountain for
anyone to go play on, as long as th
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> The expression 'land-grab' in here bothers me.
>
> I understand (if not agree with) the 'deep philosophy justification'
> of the FSF for a particular licensing strategy.
>
> I understand the views of individuals who don't want to benefit
>
The expression 'land-grab' in here bothers me.
I understand (if not agree with) the 'deep philosophy justification'
of the FSF for a particular licensing strategy.
I understand the views of individuals who don't want to benefit
corporations without extracting, at least, some token cooperation in
Having finally caught up with most of the discussion so far - I am wondering if
there is a fundamental disconnect between how the various communities model
commercial interests and open source.
Perhaps it is fair to surmise that Apache rules of engagement matured during
the start of the dot-com
