Re: [NTLK] Open Sourcing ATA Support

From: Adam Warner (lists_at_consulting.net.nz)
Date: Mon Oct 22 2001 - 21:29:31 EDT


On Tue, 2001-10-23 at 10:15, Paul Guyot wrote:

> >That's wrong. Users get the benefit of an open source ATA driver for all
> >time. They can buy another second hand Newton and the driver will just
> >work. No need to obtain another license code.
>=20
> Here, it's just like releasing the software as freeware. You talked=20
> about honest users, so you admit that honest users probably won't=20
> donate the equivalent of two licenses if they have two Newtons.

Look Paul, we were discussing you open sourcing the driver in exchange
for prepayments/donations. If you are concerned that someone might use
the driver on more than one Newton or someone would use the driver even
though they didn't contribute financially to the open sourcing then
fine. You clearly want to be able to lock the driver onto individual
Newtons and have complete control over its use. That's your choice.

You clearly forget that if you open sourced the driver IT WOULD NOT BE
DISHONEST TO USE IT.

> >I don't. I think you're looking at this as a zero sum game.
>=20
> This is the case when we're talking about time. Non zero sum game are=20
> only based on money or other things and we consider only a part of=20
> the system (if we consider everyone and having money linearily, it's=20
> a zero sum game too). Here I'm only talking about time.

Another user could have a blinding-flash-of-the-obvious and solve
something or contribute advice that you are stuck on. Overall there
could be a gain in available time. Only if you think that you have all
the answers quicker than anyone else could come up with an answer there
would be a zero sum time (and you make compelling arguments for why this
might be the case).

> >We now have an open development platform for the Newton.
>=20
> Er. Sorry, I don't get the interest of having it open source for Java=20
> users except that they can help fixing bugs. I don't understand what=20
> you put under the concept of open development platform. NTK is quite=20
> bug free and fully documented. I'm not a regular NDE user at all, but=20
> I think it's quite bug free as well. Idem for LittleLisp, Charm=20
> (well, I only recall the old name), etc.
>=20
> This last statement seems to me like a d=E9j=E0 vu meaningless=20
> open-source propaganda statement. Additionally, open doesn't apply=20
> totally to Waba. Sean developed some APIs specific to the Newton=20
> version,

Yes, the Newton library. If you use the Newton library you can't test
the Waba apps you write on another computer. You have to upload them to
the Newton.

I like and use an open source platform on my servers and workstations. I
value my user freedoms. I would value being able to use an open source
driver and not have licensing restrictions, protection checks and
hardware locks. And I was prepared to pay for this freedom and help
promote a way you could be paid as well. You are not interested. Fine (I
just made an off-list suggestion that you were welcome to discuss with
the wider community if you were interested. You did. It's over). But
please don't call my values propaganda.

> But I'm not closed at all to open source when it could benefit=20
> everyone. The DCL, as soon as I finished the verbose presentation of=20
> the license it will be released under and I'll have submitted it to=20
> the OSI, will be publically open sourced. And I expect open sourcing=20
> it to benefit to everyone because it complies to (nearly) every=20
> single argument you gave.

Thanks for your huge reply Paul. By your responses I consider the issue
closed. Again, best wishes with the ongoing development. Thanks for the
beta 9 release.

Regards,
Adam

--
This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net
To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or
	mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Nov 01 2001 - 10:02:27 EST