On Sun, Oct 24, 1999 at 09:43:37PM +0100, Dave Tweed wrote:
> Aren't you pre-emptively assuming several key things:
I was pointing out a worst-case scenario, so yes, I made some of those
assumptions. I'll be very happy when (if) we find that my concern
was unwarranted.
> It would seem appropriate to get at least 1 & 2 confirmed before getting
> into a discussion of the licence/usage implications.
It's usually easier to correct mistakes before (or shortly after) they
are made than late in the process. That's why I made my post, to point
out a potential problem.
> please let's try and
> keep this list a place where people are allowed to propose/discuss things
> for `pure research value' without being pressurised to _immediately_ make
> them conform to {free software,open source} ideology.
I am not the moderator or administrator for this list, so I don't have
any power whatsoever to influence the discussion on this list. And if
I were either of those things, I'd be very careful in not letting my
opinions on these matters guide the way I used these powers (yes, I am
a moderator elsewhere and an administrator for several lists, so I know
what I'm talking about).
As far as I am concerned, people are free to discuss ideas on this list.
But because this list is not purely academic, I feel it is within my
rights to point out potential practical problems. I'm as much delighted
as the next person to find out that my concerns are unwarranted.
IMAO, all research software should be free. But I don't hold it against
anyone for disagreeing with me.
I hope we can end this discussion on-list here. If necessary, feel free
to respond to me in private.
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
""
(John Cage)
