Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...

David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> Mon, 03 December 2012 22:50 UTC

Return-Path: <dwm@xpasc.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F23C321F89AA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:50:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.953
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.953 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.646, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cLRbaKgPUdPo for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:50:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from c2w3p-2.abacamail.com (c2w3p-2.abacamail.com [209.133.53.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1898621F899F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:50:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xpasc.com (unknown [68.164.244.188]) by c2w3p-2.abacamail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 615313FBA2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:50:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from egate.xpasc.com (egate.xpasc.com [10.1.2.49]) by xpasc.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qB3MoAeh007075 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:50:10 -0800
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:50:10 -0800 (PST)
From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
cc: IETF-Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
In-Reply-To: <50BCD637.3030009@acm.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1212031446410.7002@egate.xpasc.com>
References: <50BA64AB.3010106@cs.tcd.ie> <50BCD637.3030009@acm.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Milter-Version: master.1+13-gbab1945
X-AV-Type: clean
X-AV-Accuracy: exact
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 22:50:22 -0000

On Mon, 3 Dec 2012, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:


> I support this idea, but I think that free software should also be considered
> as part of this experiment (free software and open source are not synonymous).
>  Using the acronym FOSS and defining it as Free or Open Source Software in the
> document would achieve this.

By my understanding free is not applicable in that software can be free 
without the source being available. The key in my mind to the open source
sugestion is the ability of others to examine the actual code for coverage
of edge concerns or whatever. Open source is available today under many
license agreements. Free is not a requirement to achieve the review
objective.