Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:47:00 -0700
From:      Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
To:        "'emailrob' spellberg" <emailrob@emailrob.com>, FreeBSD Chat List <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   Re: FreeBSDmall vs Daemonnews mall
Message-ID:  <4.3.2.7.2.20020116113905.01ccea60@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <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
At 11:35 AM 1/16/2002, 'emailrob' spellberg wrote:

>no matter how many vendors, there is ultimately one source.

Not true. Vendors will, and should, add value.

>not true.
>the quality of the code does not result from
>  the nature of the source of the code.

This is just plain silly. The quality of the operating
system is the direct result of the quality 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.

Sorry, but in that case you are seeking a commercial model,
not an open source one. Truly free code, such as that which
is distributed uner the BSD License, can be used in any way
one pleases -- including the creation of a bad product. 
(Windows, for example, includes code from FreeBSD.) But
this does not hurt BSD one bit. 

>all software should have owners.
>the public domain is a class of owner for this purpose.

You're talking nonsense. Public domain code EXPLICITLY
has no owner.

>whoever owns the trademark,
>  it should be used by those who advocate the use of the product.

So long as the trademark is owned by a commercial entity, that
entity will have a financial motivation to restrict the activities
of its competitors. If it's a public company, it can literally be
sued by shareholders if it doesn't maximize profits.

>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.

You are naive. If a vendor has to beg for permission from a direct 
competitor to get permission to sell a product, it is best advised 
to get out of the business. 

--Brett


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?4.3.2.7.2.20020116113905.01ccea60>