On 9/24/07, Michael Dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > many people feel much differently, why not just a pure proprietary license > then, rather than proliferating Yet Another Silly License which is not > tempered by sound legal analysis.
Not to be insulting but I don't think you read my 1st blog entry as I suggested (at least the first paragraph... specifically where I say both open and closed source are equally the wrong model). Now onto your actual points: The license has received legal review by an IP attorney. Again not to be insulting but I think most FOSS people slept through econ 101, especially the section on there is no such thing as a limitless resource. Even though you might consider this to be a conflict of interest; I have a family member who is a prof. of econ at UC Santa Cruz and has reviewed the economic aspects of both my specific work and the general concept of SIW (see second blog entry for definition). His general conclusion is while the model is untried on a large scale and there are some more minor things we can improve on (subject of debate within the SIW community) that we fix many of the economic flaws with both open and closed source models. He is currently in the process of writing a book on the matter and said he would have a full review after rewriting ch8 (which is on the economic issues raised by both models) in a few weeks. _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"