Hello all;
Martin Konold wrote:
[..]
The only acceptable license for RMS is finally the GPL. This means that
according to RMS in the end everything shall be licensed under the GPL
without exceptions.
I look on this as a bit of a strawman. It's
easy to be confused by Richard's subtle
Hello all;
Michael Stutz wrote:
Richard Brice wrote:
You can't use source code licensed with License X with source code
licensed with License Z (ok, that's a generalization but I don't
think it is too far off the mark).
Is it *possible* for a license to be compatible with another?
Hello again all;
J C Lawrence wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 18:40:26 -0500
Rafi M Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..]
It is unfortunate that the powers that be @ opensource.org only
seem to be interested in gaining the support of large corporations
and those who decide to just use an
This is an error ... this isn't meant to be out
for another few weeks ...
and *boy* do I pontificate. Please forgive me.
Be well;
JC.
And frankly, you have no idea how relieved I am to type
that subject heading.
I have, this hour, finished the last of my graphs. Here's
my general conclusion:
There is no definite conclusion. There are, however, two
surviving possibilities:
* Bazaars break Brooks' Law. Never before seen
Hello all;
Attached is the much-hallybooed appendix IV, creating a
fairly rudimentary framework for economics and Free
Software. I'm only one major graph away from completing
the essay (a marginal graph of programmers vs loc in
subprojects) and some minors (simple ratios) and I'll
be done.
JC.
RMS wrote:
How do Open Source projects differ from the above?
In two very important ways. Firstly, OSPs have no
time-bound. That is, there is no deadline whereby
the next version of GNOME has to be delivered, "or
I agree entirely with your argument, but the words raise a
Back to it!
Mark wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Jacques Chester wrote:
The issue of quadratic paths of communications. It's one of the
suggested causes of Brook's Law.
Mathematically, N^2-N is only the number of *two-ended* communication
paths. I could see several situations in which what
Hello all, again.
Jacques Chester wrote:
[...] Brook's Law [...]
BTW, it's Brooks's law (not Brook's law or Brooks' law); the
current draft consistently gets this wrong.
Bugger. I spotted this myself at one point, whereupon it
was promptly forgotten. It's rude for me to do so, as the
same
On Sun, 15 Aug 1999, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
2. Brooks's Law is not precisely *equivalent* to LODR, but is rather
a special
case of it involving *particular* nonlinear scaling phenomena.
Accordingly,
one may assert that the bazaar mode repeals Brooks's Law without
making
any
Oh, and btw:
As wild as this sounds, I am starting to get ground
into the dirt by the programming involved in getting
this project to Just Work, dammit. If anyone can help
me, email me, quick! :)
JC.
X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy
*Coughs politely*
Jacques Chester [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Fifthly, the possible conclusions so far are:
* That ESR is completely correct, that Free Software *does* break
the
LODR and that it represents a new economic phenomenon in
production
Hello again;
As it happens, I have been unable to meet my goal of
delivering the completed essay this weekend. This was
a result of classic scheduling errors - the time-vacuum
and the job underestimation.
Instead of the complete essay, I have instead included
those sections which *are* ready
Hello there;
I'm sending this email to a number of people. The majority of you
have already been asked in the past about what I am going to
describe. Namely, I have asked most of you to perform a
peer review of an essay about economics and free software.
Some of you have *not* been asked
Hello all;
So far, license-discuss has yielded my best
response. I've posted to several newsgroups,
but usenet being as it is I don't expect too
many timely responses.
To answer a mild criticism, which has already
arisen; namely, "such a paper is off-topic to
this list".
I emailed the RFC
Hello all;
So far, license-discuss has yielded my best
response. I've posted to several newsgroups,
but usenet being as it is I don't expect too
many timely responses.
To answer a mild criticism, which has already
arisen; namely, "such a paper is off-topic to
this list".
I emailed the RFC
On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, Wilfredo Sanchez wrote:
snip
Certainly the GPL has worked well here. Writing a compiler is
enough of a pain in the ass that dealing with the GPL, regardless of
your objections, is likely worthwhile.
The GPL has had many areas of success. I wonder, out of sheer
Hi all;
... a maiden poster here. Trust me to pick a holy war to start
with, eh?
snip
Seems to be a backlash against the GPL lately - slashdot has posted
numerous
articles on freebsd, which invariably say that "the gpl is evil (blah
blah),
and use freebsd because it's better. insert holy
18 matches
Mail list logo
