[Fwd: Re: An Xmas present for you to peruse, comment, and mull..]

Jon 'maddog' Hall maddog at li.org
Tue Jan 4 08:02:43 EST 2011


Joshua,

I will not comment on most of your discussion, since I think you and I agree that some of
the words in Seth's document will be hard to prove as written, and perhaps should be modified
so the opponents of the bill will not have statements to challenge.

>> If you want to make "adherence to open, platform-neutral standards" as
>> part of your definition of "Open Source" in 21-R:10 then this part is
>> fine.

>Only if it's also part of the definition of "Proprietary"....

>It's not obvious to me that an Open-Source implementation of some weird
>`standard' that's only supported by that one (open)  implementation
>is inherently *any worse* than a proprietary implementation of some
>weird `standard' that's only supported by that one (closed) implementation.

Here we are making a definition of what is "open".  We do not have to necessarily address what
is "proprietary".  If you want to further define what is "standard", that is fine too.

>> We don't need to ship the money out of state.  There is only so much
>> Maple syrup that Bill can eat.

>Especially when NH has resident tech experts who are going out-of-state
>to do that very job in question? I wonder how much of our economy
>is spending its work-day down in MA. I, for one, really would prefer
>to be working here in my home state; I bet the NH counterparts
>to the businesses I currently frequent in MA would prefer me
>to work near them instead, too ;)

Whatever happened to the old phrase "Think Globally, act locally?"

md



More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list