On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Scott Kitterman <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
They aren't equivalent. A developer of a Free/Open implementation can openly> But my point was more that "open source" is meaningless, and not what I
> think we're missing/need. I agree we need more developers (at least in RAI
> it would help), but whether the things they develop are open source or not
> doesn't matter. Developers of open source are no better or worse than
> those of closed source. And their source code "openness" is not tied to
> their ability to pay or not, either.
show/discuss the code related to development issues associated with protocol
development. That's often more useful than hand waving about implementation
issues that can't be shared. Not that proprietary implementations don't
server to inform the process at all, but it's not equivalent to what can be
accomplished with a Free/Open implementation.
Note: I'm not claiming this should change anyone's mind about discounts.
+1 to the fact that you can openly show/discuss the code. I also want to repeat the fact that many libraries (Apache / BSD / public domain) get bundled into proprietary code as well (for example see how many products ship some version of curl/zlib library). So while it is hard to define "open source" no doubt, we as a community should look at how to get more implementers (whose code is likely to be widely deployed). That will help us to avoid fixing quirk down the road which is difficult and expensive. It is a problem worth looking at.
-- Vinayak