Interesting - that story was first published in New Scientist *ages* ago and as it says, is copyleft but it took a time to get recycled though...
Anyway, without starting a mass flamewar, isnt the sourcecode the recipe to make an executable, (just add Ant)? In the same way the recipe for opencola makes, erm cola - just add a suitable build system - your kitchen? Doesn't it offer some OSS benefits - add cherries, extra caffine etc and republish the improved product? Isnt the real value in the IP which is itself in the source not the actual derived product. Of course, you need to buy the physical ingredients but when does the commercial bit devalue the overall open bit? Hmm, enough - I have a feeling I'm about to get flamed :-) > -----Original Message----- > From: Danny Angus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 04 July 2002 11:12 > To: Jakarta General List > Subject: RE: [OT] Open-Source Cola > > > > > Ellis Teer wrote: > > > http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13494 > > > IMHO the trouble with OS hardware of any kind is that the so > called "source" > is not the whole essential pre-requisite for the product, it > is merely the > build documentation, whereas for OS software the source is in fact the > product (or as near as makes no practical difference). > > This cola story bears as much relationship to OS as the > carrier pigeon RFC > (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt) does to network > architecture, it looks > right in every detail but it doesn't offer any practical > benefit to anyone. > > d. > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
