Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Will Open Source be forced to go Proprietary

From: Alex Satrapa <alex(at)lintelsys(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Postgresql Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Will Open Source be forced to go Proprietary
Date: 2004-01-08 22:20:44
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
Rod Taylor wrote:
> Discussion about OpenSource projects moving to support Windows.

This article was WOFTAM (Waste of Time And Money).

The article asks if open source projects will be "forced to go 
proprietary" without describing what "proprietary" means. I'm not sure 
the author really understands the software "industry".

One of the telling comments is that the author confuses "published" with 
"open" - Microsoft has indeed "published" the XML schema for it's new 
range of Microsoft Office products, but the patent it has applied for 
implies that the schema is not "open". Software can be "proprietary" 
without being "closed".

It seems to me that someone was writing for a deadline, not an audience.

However, one single grain of truth emerged: "Most people don't care 
about helping out Windows". Why would we? We already support the stable 
and trustworthy computing platforms.

Alex Satrapa

In response to


pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2004-01-08 22:30:09
Subject: Re: A cohesive sales message
Previous:From: Rob NapierDate: 2004-01-08 22:16:10
Subject: Re: A cohesive sales message

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group