RE: OSS for the iSeries -- MIDRANGE-L


> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
> [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of James W. Kilgore
> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 3:16 PM
> To: midrange-l@midrange.com
> Subject: Re: OSS for the iSeries
>
>
> jt,
>
> Here's a little history lesson on WyattERP.
>
<snip>

James,

I'm gonna put my arm around your shoulder and try to gently explain a few
things.  I've read a lot more about you than you've read about me.  I know
your a good writer, for example, and IIRC from the AAG you have experience
in setting up 501(c) corps.

Being a good writer, you KNOW that the first paragraph sets the tone for the
rest of the piece.  I suggest you tone down the rhetoric.  If I didn't know
better, I'd think you were trying to impress somebody.

You don't know me well enough to presume that I need a history lesson.  You
filled in a few minor details, in your history lesson, but didn't tell me
significantly more than I already knew.  I occasionally touch base on your
website, that Leslie pointed us to over a year ago.  (Notice it hasn't
changed, since then, for example.)

>
> BTW, I HAVE the intellectual property rights and the OSS
> community respects that
> and it is a fundamental concept of the OSS model.  Now I'm -not-
> willing to
> argue this till doomsday, but IMHO you just don't get it.

I saw the discussions on the OpenERP400, about this.  Noticed that it's not
so clear-cut, from your posts and also others who posted at that time.  But
I'm not into discussing the legality end of it either...

But what I will say is that, from what I have gleaned, you own the WyattERP
project, intellectually.  It sure appears to be YOUR "baby", but ICBW.

But one thing I CAN assure you is that you don't understand what I'm saying,
sufficiently, to know whether I get it or not.  So this post comes across
mainly as a lot of heated rhetoric...

>
> PS please, for the subscribers that receive the digest version,
> snip out the
> parts not relevant.  It's a courtesy thing.  It's a good thing. :)

...And I suggested that taking this topic out of the Tech list would also be
a courtesy thing, already.


>
>
> jt wrote:
> >
> > James,
> >
> > As a matter of fact, your project suffers from lack of venture capital.
> > This, IMV, is the failure of OSS development.
> >
> > I've studied it sufficiently to know that there are advantages and
> > disadvantages to OSS.
> >
> > ===> But it's fundamental premise is a disrespect for ownership of
> > intellectual property.  You can argue against this view, 'till
> doomsday, but
> > the fact remains.  The advantages to the methodology are
> PERCEIVED to hinge
> > on giving code away.  But the advantages DO NOT DIRECTLY DEPEND
> on giving
> > code away for free.