Re: [mmox] Time to rethink the commercial angle

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:53 PM, William George
<wjgeorge@dceo.rutgers.edu>wrote:

In order to sidestep some of the thorny (and circular) discussions on
> property rights, as well as the petty technical arguments backed by
> "customer interests", I propose that only worlds with free access and only
> unencumbered objects be allowed to interoperate, at least to start.
>

The word "allowed" isn't appropriate since there is no permission required
to distribute unencumbered objects nor to interoperate.

Apart from that though, the spirit and promise and viability of what you
envisage is clear.  The future of open grids is unbounded, simply because
unencumbered object exchange is unhampered by any constraints except
computer resources, and enthusiasm in the open community probably exceeds
the known physical constraints of teh universe. ;-)

Since the free and open grids have assets that are either public domain or
licensed under free-distribution licenses like GPL, BSD, CC and others, it
makes no sense whatsoever to hold back interop between such open worlds just
because the proprietary worlds can't get their act together.

Fortunately, they're not being held back in the slightest. ;-)

Morgaine.

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:53 PM, William George
<wjgeorge@dceo.rutgers.edu>wrote:

> In order to sidestep some of the thorny (and circular) discussions on
> property rights, as well as the petty technical arguments backed by
> "customer interests", I propose that only worlds with free access and only
> unencumbered objects be allowed to interoperate, at least to start.
>
> The commercial objectives are taking up too much of  _my_ limited
> bandwidth.
>
> Remember when the internet did not have any commercial interests? This was
> up until 1994, not really that long ago.
>
> Waka
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> mmox@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>
>