At 11:59 PM 12/3/00 -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> the sanctity of the *core* server is *always*
>foremost in our minds, no matter what other projects we are working on ...
What happens if financially things aren't entirely rosy with your company?
The problem in taking itty-bitty steps in this direction is that you're
involving outside money interests that don't necessarily adhere to this
Having taken the first steps to a proprietary, closed source future, would
you pledge to bankrupt your company rather than accept a large captital
investment with an ROI based on proprietary extensions to the core that
might not be likely to come out of the non-tainted side of the development
Would your company sign a contract to that effect with independent parties,
i.e. that it would never violate the sanctity of the *core*? Even if it means
you go broke? And that your investors go broke?
Or would your investors prefer you not make such a formal committment, in order
to keep options open if things don't go well?
(in the early 80's my company received a total of $8,000,000 in pre-IPO
capital investments, so I have some experience with the expectations of investors.
It tends to make me a bit paranoid. I'm not the only COO to have such experiences
while living the life).
What happens in two years if those investors in eRServer haven't gotten adequate
return on their investment? Do you have a formal agreement that the source will
be released regardless? Can the community inspect the agreement so we can judge
for ourselves whether or not this assurance is adequately backed by contract
Are your agreements Open Source? :)
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Thomas Lockhart||Date: 2000-12-04 06:26:10|
|Subject: Re: postgres docs (was Re: Crash during WAL recovery?)|
|Previous:||From: Don Baccus||Date: 2000-12-04 06:03:11|
|Subject: Re: beta testing version|