valinux goes propietary?

MJ Ray markj at
Mon Aug 27 16:03:02 UTC 2001

"smaffulli at"<smaffulli at> writes:

> > Did VA's background as a hardware company influence this?  Is their
> > setup so tuned towards selling products that they can't sell services?
> that sounds like a good point, thanks. It still leaves exposed the question
> ESR backing up such a move: can we consider this as the final act of the
> Open Source Initiative? Is OSI over now? Shall we say it? Or who else
> should claim the end of OSI?

OSI has always been more focused on the technical benefits of "open
source" rather than freedom.  I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it
move even further to the pragmatic point of view, possibly rewriting
their Open Source Definition to include less freedom beyond being able
to review the source.

> What do you mean with "Linuxmanship"-style page? 

There was a web page (and I seem to have lost the URL) which was
basically a quick guide to marketing and public relations for people
involved in the LUG movement.  It included such simple things as not
ranting and be careful to make the language used work for you rather
than the opposition (eg closed systems are "legacy").  With the
argument having both technical and social dimensions, I think some
basic social engineering advice is needed.  Sometimes we can be our
own worst enemies.  I know I am.

> Originally i
> wrote that article in English to advocate the release of a specific
> piece of software under the GPL.

It's in English?  I'll read it when I'm next online.  Thanks.

More information about the Discussion mailing list