My comments over the past few days are in response to Fred's new initiative in
which I thought they may have come up with a novel way bridge the
FOSS-proprietary divide. I was mistaken. Nevertheless, since I still believe in
FOSS and in promoting low cost/resource conserving solutions for better
fred,
two things.
1. i do not have any problem with the cchit certification of
proprietary software packages. it primarily does not apply to me, so
i can tune it out. the part of their message that i am listening to
is their evolving concept about open source certification. i am
looking for
Steve,
I went back and re-read your blog to see if your thinking had evolved
with something new but it does not seem to have changed.
You want to 'open source' your software but keep part of it patented.
It's nice that you are interested in FOSS but it doesn't work that
way. If you want it to be
I didn't think you were pointing to me, Fred, but I do thank you anyway for
clarifying.
To follow up on Alvin's comment, I have several other programs I'm considering
licensing as FOSS, but the functions that I believe would be most useful to the
FOSS community consist of a radical/disruptive
