[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [seul-edu] SEUL Licensing
Ray Olszewski wrote:
> At 09:27 PM 8/30/00 -0700, Bill Ries-Knight wrote:
> >Methinks it is time to review what is on the deck at opensource.org
> Not sure why, but I'll oblige. In terms of the concerns I've been raising,
> the relevant part of the argument is on the page
The thought of looking at opensource.org is they are <percieved> by much of the
world as the <authority> by default. I think it is the name they use and the
push and twist they give themselves. I reference them because a large part
of the computing world hears what they say.
SNIP big time.....
I am not as eloquent as many others here, but I will suggest that the thing we
need to consider is EVANGELISM and APOLOGETICS. These are words much like
MANIFESTO. I use them to mean speaking out strongly in favor of something with
extreme fervor, and explaining it to those in ignorance on the subject.
WE speak and speak and speak. The points can be argued and defended until we
are blue in the face, but all we are doing is making a noise. We simply need
to realize that in this world, until someone with megabucks gives us money, we
need to earn a living. A living can be had by most decent techs and
programmers, because the local business will need something they cannot buy at
computers-r-us (trademarked by the R-US folks) or office supply heaven stores.
A good living can be had by those with the contacts to do custom work
internally for larger companies and government. A great living can be had by
those that sell the work of the first two groups.
As long as the programmer is willing to go forward and deliver work as
OPEN SOURCE under today's thinking, there should be an understanding that
renumeration for such work will likely never see a return, outside of a few
ooh's and ahh's. Until the person(s) building a program have the business
savvy of Bill Gates, and the tounge of Daniel Webster, they will ALWAYS lag
behind the person that sells for living. What OPEN SOURCE needs to do is help
the one building a program for a business find a place for it someplace else.
If someone else can use this work to build something better, that is good. If
it is so good it needs no improvement, we should find a way to reimburse if it
is used elsewhere and money again changes hands. (Think syndicate, like the
Let us, the community in general, accept the fact that work, unless freely and
openly given as a gift (consider the current dialog on the Cafeteria Software),
should be reimbursable. We would nerver consider expecting the Lawyer to do
ALL of her work with education law pro-bono (for free). She might consider
helping the kid writing the Anti School Board article on the school paper, but
surely she expects to be paid by the local fast food businesses upset because
the local schools just instituted a Closed Campus policy for lunch hour..
As a community, we at SEUL/edu have one overriding interest, making LINUX work
in our schools. AS A COMMUNITY we will help the person with printer problems
and the person needing a Music Lab. We will build a custom Cafeteria program
to meet the needs of one school or a whole district. <AS A COMMUNITY> is a
powerful phrase. Don't look at me to build that database backend today. I
can't. I don't have the skill to do so. Many others can do the job. I really
doubt if all of those with the skills on the list have offered to help. Those
that have offered to help have differing reasons for doing so, and that is
One part of the community should not presume to declare something for or on
behalf of another part of the community.
I have been too verbose, thanks for bearing with me.