On 10/08/2012 07:23, Thomas Harding wrote:
[...]
Maybe a "user-preference intelligent javascript file" you describe
above, sent by mail each time needed on user will to turn on/off
"intelligent embedded javascript", together used with a "dedicated
"intellgnence embedded" mail/nntp/whatever client
On 10/08/2012 07:23, Thomas Harding wrote:
[...]
Maybe a "user-preference intelligent javascript file" you describe
above, sent by mail each time needed on user will to turn on/off
"intelligent embedded javascript", together used with a "dedicated
"intellgnence embedded" mail/nntp/whatever cli
Thomas Harding wrote:
On 10/08/2012 18:53, Miles Fidelman wrote:
But I think what you are actually saying is :
"For $25, the user receives binaries *and*
source-code for the 'client' component, but
does not recieve binaries nor source-code
for the 'server' component.".
I think I understand th
On 10/08/2012 18:53, Miles Fidelman wrote:
But I think what you are actually saying is :
"For $25, the user receives binaries *and*
source-code for the 'client' component, but
does not recieve binaries nor source-code
for the 'server' component.".
I think I understand the confusion.
Ahhh...
-
I should add: The $25 kickstarter award for "Access to software on
release date - plus 5-year system-wide identity and crypto credentials."
is really for the identity and crypto credentials. The code (source,
object, client, server) will ALL be in a public repository under an open
source lice
Folks, I'm trying to be really clear here.
FOSS (including the GPL) does NOT mean that I have to give software
away, it means that whenever it is distributed it CAN be freely
re-distributed.
Our model is (I think) pretty simple:
- if you want to download the code (source, binary, client-side
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 07:55:32AM -0700, Mark Holmquist wrote:
> >Since the code will be GPLd (or other open source license) it is freely
> >re-distributable. It's just that WE won't be re-distributing it openly
> >until we get to a reasonably shaken down release 1.0.
>
> OK, you clearly don't u
Assuming Patrick's description of Miles's business plan is correct, I
want to add that I think it is an interesting and inspiring model for
selling free software.
Does anyone know if it has been tried or described before?
It's a nicer version, perhaps, of the "Sell it, Free it" model
described at h
Mark Holmquist wrote:
> there's a dollar amount sitting between binary and source,
He is keeping the binaries and source bundled together,
but is only distributing those *bundles* to people who pay.
To some, the word 'code' is synonymous with 'source',
but sometimes programmers (such as Miles) us
Before that, we'll actively distribute alpha and beta code to
contributors (we're hoping to attract testers and developers) - we'll be
providing access to our server and certs to contributors, and
contributors will be free to further distribute all source and binary
code - it's just that we won't
Patrick Anderson wrote:
Miles Fidelman wrote:
Pledge $25 or more
Access to software on release date -
Hi Miles,
Does this option include source-code for
that component?
absolutely!
If so, then I think I understand the confusion.
To some of us, it sounds like you are saying
"For $25, the
Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Pledge $25 or more
> Access to software on release date -
Hi Miles,
Does this option include source-code for
that component?
If so, then I think I understand the confusion.
To some of us, it sounds like you are saying
"For $25, the user receives binaries, but not
source
Since the code will be GPLd (or other open source license) it is freely
re-distributable. It's just that WE won't be re-distributing it openly
until we get to a reasonably shaken down release 1.0.
OK, you clearly don't understand this.
If you're selling software to people for price X, but not
Mark Holmquist wrote:
2. try to limit dissemination during alpha and beta to those who are
likely to test and contribute (I really don't want to inflict really
early code on folks who simply want a usable tool - I figure that's
doing them a disservice) (note: since the alpha and beta code will b
2. try to limit dissemination during alpha and beta to those who are
likely to test and contribute (I really don't want to inflict really
early code on folks who simply want a usable tool - I figure that's
doing them a disservice) (note: since the alpha and beta code will be
available as source,
[Miles forgottent to reply to list. I'm not alone!]
On 09/08/2012 23:23, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Thomas Harding wrote:
On 09/08/2012 22:17, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Thomas Harding wrote:
The "text editor" could be wsgi hosted (web) or standalone
editor is going to be embedded in the HTML+JavaS
Mark Holmquist wrote:
Of course, maybe I've misunderstood the purpose of this list. If so,
I invite dissent!
Freedom is not necessarily incompatible with charging a fee for access
to a distribution service that happens to contain specific GPLed
content,
assuming that's what Miles meant by "li
Zygo Blaxell wrote:
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 11:18:53AM -0700, Mark Holmquist wrote:
On 12-08-06 05:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Supported by the fact that your beta/alpha users (and release users?
must be a typo?) will only have access to the source code if they pay
you extra. That's not how fr
Thomas Harding wrote:
On 07/08/2012 01:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Hence the project :-)
Seriously, this started with some work on distribution of military
operations orders - currently distributed largely as text and
attachments, by email - and asking if we could simplify handling of
follow-
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 11:18:53AM -0700, Mark Holmquist wrote:
> On 12-08-06 05:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> >>Supported by the fact that your beta/alpha users (and release users?
> >>must be a typo?) will only have access to the source code if they pay
> >>you extra. That's not how free softwar
Of course, maybe I've misunderstood the purpose of this list. If so,
I invite dissent!
Freedom is not necessarily incompatible with charging a fee for access
to a distribution service that happens to contain specific GPLed content,
assuming that's what Miles meant by "limited release."
No, the
On 07/08/2012 01:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Hence the project :-)
Seriously, this started with some work on distribution of military
operations orders - currently distributed largely as text and
attachments, by email - and asking if we could simplify handling of
follow-up messages by sending
On 12-08-06 05:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Supported by the fact that your beta/alpha users (and release users?
must be a typo?) will only have access to the source code if they pay
you extra. That's not how free software works, I'm sorry to break it
to you.
I've got to have some kinds of ince
Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 6 August 2012 19:21, Miles Fidelman wrote:
My personal observation has been that even with a tiny group, an email
containing a list of action items very quickly yields a thread of dozens, or
hundreds of follow-ups - requests for details, Q&A, status updates, nagging
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> Fossil is almost but not quite such a wiki. It has built in wiki that
> is not versioned,
The built-in wiki is versioned. The interface is such that it does not
show the version DAG, however, and there are no provisions for doing merges
Hello,
On 5 August 2012 03:28, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> where are they and how do I get their attention?
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> Open source software development involves a lot of distributed collaboration
> - and I expect that many folks here, like me, are involved in one or more
> projects, and d
On 6 August 2012 19:21, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> >From the startup side - with like 3 people on the project the
>> contribution of some software for project organization is questionable
>> at best. The overall attitude is geared towards doing stuff, not
>> managing stuff
Mark Holmquist wrote:
On 08/06/2012 05:05 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
That's sort of the mental model, with a few nits:
- looking at Fossil - which incorporates distributed wiki and bug
tracking with a git-like distributed version control system
Great plan. You could almost just git-track an in
On 08/06/2012 05:05 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
That's sort of the mental model, with a few nits:
- looking at Fossil - which incorporates distributed wiki and bug
tracking with a git-like distributed version control system
Great plan. You could almost just git-track an instance of TiddlyWiki
a
Mark Holmquist wrote:
- everyone has their own copy of an action item list and supporting
documents
- updates are replicated via a peer-to-peer, asynchronous protocol
I can imagine a git-based system that creates a git repository with
some meta-files (something like .gitpeers) that keep track
Mary-Anne Wolf wrote:
For a lot of people, a Google Spreadsheet, or one of the new web-based
checklist sharing packages is just fine. This is for those of us who:
- like our own copies of things, and/or,
- need to work disconnected a lot of the time (on airplanes, responding
to disasters, and
- everyone has their own copy of an action item list and supporting
documents
- updates are replicated via a peer-to-peer, asynchronous protocol
I can imagine a git-based system that creates a git repository with some
meta-files (something like .gitpeers) that keep track of other users.
Whenev
> Actually, my motivation stems from being really unhappy with centralized
> solutions. I'm basically going the other way:
> - everyone has their own copy of an action item list and supporting
> documents
> - updates are replicated via a peer-to-peer, asynchronous protocol
> Essentially, the l
Hi Mary-Anne,
Thanks for the comments.
Mary-Anne Wolf wrote:
That's kind of what I'm wondering. On the one hand, everybody I know
does something that looks like project management - who doesn't have a
to-do list, or a checklist or two sitting around; and an awful lot of us
work in groups that
> That's kind of what I'm wondering. On the one hand, everybody I know
> does something that looks like project management - who doesn't have a
> to-do list, or a checklist or two sitting around; and an awful lot of us
> work in groups that have action item lists. But do people think of that
Folks, I hope you don't mind some interactive responses - this really is
helping clarify a lot of my thinking
Michael, thanks!
Michal Suchanek wrote:
Hello,
On 5 August 2012 03:28, Miles Fidelman wrote:
where are they and how do I get their attention?
Hi Folks,
Open source softwa
36 matches
Mail list logo
