response 474 of 547:

Oct 20 03:27 UTC 2003

Several points.  I'm starting to get really leery of major software
components that only one or two staffers can fix, install, whatever.
This is certainly the case with PicoSpan, and for legal reasons; it's
not even a question of technical knowledge (which could presumably
be transferred)!  Surely that's bad.  What's more, it's not at all
clear to me that we have a legal license for it.

But let me ask this: why is PicoSpan still `closed source'?  I don't
think there are too many people running it.  Would it be possible to
ask the holders of the intellectual property to release it under an
open source style license?  Or under a dual-license so that non-profits
can use it for free?  That would eliminate the problem once and
for all.

But even then, I'm not sure that's going in the right direction.
Something like frontalk, which works across machines, is in my
opinion where we should be directing our efforts.

Mail isn't a big deal.  Give me a day and I'll have it set up.  But
the time for elaborate spec writing and endless back and forth has
passed: we've used up our time trying to create a system that
satisfies everyone, and in the end, we've satisfied no one.  Let's
just start from a few basic guiding principles, a reasonable design,
and go from there.  If some aspect or other of the system isn't to
someone's liking, too bad; at least we'll have a place to start
addressing that person's concerns from.