Re: [DotGNU]DotGNU Manifesto - Draft Version 0.3

[James Michael DuPont]

--- Rhys Weatherley <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 April 2003 09:30 pm, James Michael DuPont wrote:
> > --- Chris Smith <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > > Nicely put.
> >
> > And way off the mark.
> > At this moment the Dotgnu system is only usable by developers.
> There
> > are no products that could be used by anyone.
> 
> Rome wasn't built in a day and all that.  You could conceivably say
> the same 
> about Microsoft's .NET implementation - lots of infrastructure, but
> few real 
> apps as yet.  It will come.  Java was the same for the first few
> years of its 
> existence (heck, it could be argued that Java still lacks decent 
> user-oriented applications).  It will be somewhat difficult to build
> the 
> "products" you speak of if we have no way to compile and run them!
> 
> > I think that it is a mistake to close the door to non-free
> > customization and support of the dotgnu.
> 
> Please re-read the FSF philosophy section.  It isn't in our job
> description to 
> make it easy for non-free vendors to continue using and building
> software 
> incorrectly.  If they don't want to join the Free Software party and
> provide 
> customization and support in a manner compatible with the GPL, it's
> their 
> loss when FS takes over (just ask the proprietry C compiler vendors,
> or the 
> proprietry Unix vendors, or ...).
> 
> > In fact, the lacking of any obvious industry support is just a
> symptom
> > of this thought pattern.
> 
> There are plenty of non-free companies that are hurting for industry
> support 
> right now as well.  It's called an "economic downturn".  DotGNU is
> much 
> better positioned to survive such a downturn because it isn't
> affected by the 
> economics of paying employees, keeping an office, etc.
> 
> Or would you rather have DotGNU compromise its principles and screw
> the 
> community for the first vendor that comes along with a fat check?


My point is only that we need a plan for working with non-free vendors,
we need to make sure there is neutral ground where people can use the
software as they are used to. 

The normal customers dont need to be producing free software to use and
customize the software.

The software vendors are not going to want to be locked into to dotgnu.
At first they will port to dotgnu, but dont want to become gpled in the
process.

As you pointed out, there is alot of work to do. If you dont support
any non-free software at all, then you might have a hard time getting
this finished. 


> It will be somewhat difficult to build
> the 
> "products" you speak of if we have no way to compile and run them!

Well, then you admit that it is one area where non-free vendors will
use dotgnu. but they are software vendors who compile things.


> It isn't in our job description to make it easy for non-free vendors
> to continue using and building software incorrectly.
I dont know what you mean exactly. Incorrectly?

Lets put it this way, we need to accept the fact there is non-free
software. We need to be able to sell dotgnu to people who know nothing
about free software. 

They need to understand what parts of the dotgnu system they can use
without making thier software a derived work. 

The fact is that we will have to deal with non-free vendors compiling
code and using the dotgnu system, even if they are not trying to make
free software. 

These are customers and projects live from them. If you have 10,000
customers, who dont even care about free software, they might even be
willing to pay money for the free software.

mike


=====
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.sourceforge.net/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com