Posted by: Anonymous
on September 08, 2007 09:32 PM
For all the glamor or histrionics of being first, first often reqires futher developmet or time for acceptance. In some cases opposition can fire a person up providing modivation and creativity. Also as part of the scientific process of validation thru repeated independent discovery that offen moves simply into the learning by doing process simmilar to a science lab experiment. Rejection I would hope would be viewed in terms of the value it can add rather than remove.- Simmilarly I personaly see mutual exclusion as perhaps the greatest threat to open software. And within the context of the law of the jungle open source or (source readable and compilable software)'s best stratigy may be to co-opt the position of being the jungle. Defending the principles that suport proprietary software that also allow open software to exist. What if there were a stack of software principles that allowed hybrid licenses or standard interfaces that alow compatibility between licences or as well define restrictions. Thus outlining defendable positions and defining imisable forms. It seemed a few years ago the Tevo example was seen as a victory for open source demonstrating how proprietary hardware could use and help develop open source software by the ability to also lock hardware. I think in view of rights such as speech and religion as well forms of politics that sometimes allowence of others is indured to insure ones own expression. Open souce seems to place responsibility on the user and thus lockable software dosen't mean that someone can't go make there own hardware and use open software on it.