On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 10:35:59PM -0700, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> I am not interested in Free Software as in 'free beer', I am interested
> as in 'free speech'.  And FWIW I'm on the MIT/BSD side of the debate.
> If you're going to give it away, give it away completely.  If it's too
> valuable to give away, don't.  I want my OCaml code to be commercially
> useful for game development.  I'm only interested in Open Source as a
> business model - where is the *profit* of the software commons?  I
> think, it is in fixing stupid things that are a PITA for everyone over
> and over again.  Like package management for instance.  I could care
> less about FSF style idealism.  I want things to work on the platform
> I'm stuck with for the forseeable future.

The primary motivation for much free software *is* FSF-style idealism.  It is
not reasonable to expect to reap the benefits of this idealism while
contradicting its values.

All I hear is "gimme, gimme" when non-free software developers ask for MIT/BSD
and LGPL licenses.  I am a non-free software developer myself, so don't think I
don't see from that perspective.

> > When you look to other languages: There are often commercial interests
> > behind ports to Windows (e.g. ActiveState). I don't think the O'Caml
> > market is ready for such a thing.
> 
> Things don't get ready by waiting around for others to act.  People who
> want to get it ready, are what get it ready.

Well said.  It is telling that there is noone who wants to get it ready,
considering Windows' market share.

Kenn

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners