Producing open source software isn't a bad thing, even if you don't get
it immediately. OSI's position toward proprietary software has always
been that the proprietary nature has a cost in terms of outside
contributions to your software. I mean, I never knew that the Pep Boys
were using my Toke
> On Oct 25, 2023, at 9:43 PM, Seth David Schoen wrote:
>
> Of course, license instruments that implement this strategy are not
> themselves open source licenses. But we thought it was likely that
> subscribers of this list would be familiar with examples of this
> practice and might be able t
> On 10/27/23 11:06, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> I'm sad (but also sadly not surprised) to see that OSI is not willing to
> outright criticize this model, since it is primarily a proprietary software
> model.
Josh Berkus wrote:
> If researchers start out with a predefined conclusion, you get shoddy
On 10/27/23 11:06, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
I'm sad (but also sadly not surprised) to see that OSI is not willing to
outright criticize this model, since it is primarily a proprietary
software model.
If researchers start out with a predefined conclusion, you get shoddy
research.
A research pr
FWIW, I can confirm Larry Rosen's suggestion that indeed L. Peter Deutsch and
Aladdin Ghostscript likely invented the manipulative marketing approach of
pre-announcing that proprietary software might someday be FOSS and/or making
semi-binding public statements or licensing terms that backup that ma
