Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:56:39 -0600 From: 'emailrob' spellberg <emailrob@emailrob.com> To: FreeBSD Chat List <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: FreeBSDmall vs Daemonnews mall Message-ID: <3C45DAF7.71E1B794@emailrob.com> References: <3C459893.44485DA3@emailrob.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020116085240.01c9e3e0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20020116102625.01e4f880@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20020116113905.01ccea60@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brett Glass wrote: > Not true. Vendors will, and should, add value. this is a separate issue. > >not true. > >the quality of the code does not result from > > the nature of the source of the code. > > This is just plain silly. The quality of the operating > system is the direct result of the quality of the code. your statement does not refute mine. > >it comes from review of the submissions by competent people whose > > many responsibilities include keeping out the unsatisfactory. > >however many layers of review may exist, > > ultimately a small number of people must make a decision. > >i want these people to err on the side of caution and > > i want their fists to be nuclear. > > Sorry, but in that case you are seeking a commercial model, > not an open source one. Truly free code, such as that which > is distributed uner the BSD License, can be used in any way > one pleases -- including the creation of a bad product. > (Windows, for example, includes code from FreeBSD.) But > this does not hurt BSD one bit. i am talking about freebsd itself, not that which may be built upon it. the fundamental point is that there already exists a commercial model. the os is placed on cdrom and sold for $25 / copy. this is a high margin product. some to the vendor, some to the foundation, etc. not all of us have access to megabit speed as do you. downloading is not practical. i want a reliable supplier. my original question is: why can't the foundation create a sales arm, be that reliable supplier and keep the margin for itself? with increased revenues, there is additional funding for additional projects. this does not preclude the creation of products that could be distributed through, e. g., borders or cdw. how about university bookstores and a student discount? "commercial" and "open-source" are not mutually exclusive. > >all software should have owners. > >the public domain is a class of owner for this purpose. > > You're talking nonsense. Public domain code EXPLICITLY > has no owner. you missed my point; it -was- abstract. > >whoever owns the trademark, > > it should be used by those who advocate the use of the product. > > So long as the trademark is owned by a commercial entity, that > entity will have a financial motivation to restrict the activities > of its competitors. if the other guy's product is inferior, this is doubly good. > If it's a public company, it can literally be > sued by shareholders if it doesn't maximize profits. this is a highly theoretical point and not at all practical. it can be closely held. software authors would be a good choice. > >you have it backwards: > > i was advocating that the entity holding the mark be a vendor itself, > > in addition to other vendors under contract to it. > > You are naive. If a vendor has to beg for permission from a direct > competitor to get permission to sell a product, it is best advised > to get out of the business. you are confused. see above re: retailers. there is nothing which precludes both the commercial version and the essentially zero-cost version. level of support is one way to differentiate. rob To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C45DAF7.71E1B794>