Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 12:35:41 -0600 From: 'emailrob' spellberg <emailrob@emailrob.com> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>, FreeBSD Chat List <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: FreeBSDmall vs Daemonnews mall Message-ID: <3C45C7FD.BA16A3D5@emailrob.com> References: <3C459893.44485DA3@emailrob.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020116085240.01c9e3e0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20020116102625.01e4f880@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brett Glass wrote: > The distribution does not have "refugee" status. At least two > companies, possibly more, plan to sell copies. It would be > nice, in fact, if there were more -- as there are for > NetBSD. no matter how many vendors, there is ultimately one source. i advocate being able to go to the root of the vendor tree or someone under contract to them. otherwise, eliminate the subscription concept. simply announce the existence of the new item. > >when quality is important, control must be maintained. > > Actually, just the opposite is true. That's the entire philosophy > behind open source: that quality results from contributions and > consensus rather than iron-fisted control by one entity. not true. the quality of the code does not result from the nature of the source of the code. it comes from review of the submissions by competent people whose many responsibilities include keeping out the unsatisfactory. however many layers of review may exist, ultimately a small number of people must make a decision. i want these people to err on the side of caution and i want their fists to be nuclear. > >bring all of the intellectual property [ os, trademark, etc. ] > > under one roof. > > You are starting to sound like Richard Stallman, whose "Free" > (not!) Software Foundation insists upon owning all of the code > of GNU projects, lock, stock, and barrel. (It's a dramatic > demonstration of hypocrisy; this is the same man who claims that > software "should not have owners." Hmmm.) all software should have owners. the public domain is a class of owner for this purpose. it will tend to be acquisitive. > The intellectual property that comprises FreeBSD -- in particular, > the code -- is owned by hundreds of different parties. It will > never be "under one roof." The trademark, however, should be owned > by a neutral party, not by one which might have a motivation to > exclude others. it isn't necessary to be owned. that's what licensing is for. i recommend a different license than gpl. anything on the cd is already under that roof. whoever owns the trademark, it should be used by those who advocate the use of the product. > >different types of "customer" then have a reliable supplier. > > FreeBSD isn't a commercial venture. It's inappropriate for it to > be concerned with "customers." Sellers of disks should be concerned > with their customers, but the project should not favor any of them. > To allow one seller to hold the FreeBSD trademark is inappropriate > and could be greatly damaging to the project. the use of the word 'customer' does not restrict its use to for-profit enterprises. perhaps you prefer "end-user", but this is more restrictive. you have it backwards: i was advocating that the entity holding the mark be a vendor itself, in addition to other vendors under contract to it. rob To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C45C7FD.BA16A3D5>