Re: [Off Topic] We need "Vendor"s? [was Words to Avoid "Vendor"]

> On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 09:42 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote:
>> In all of this discussion about whether they are third-party
>> developers or independant software developers, I think people have
>> missed the important point.
>> That point is that we need to encourage traditional independant
>> software VENDORS to our platform. Our platform is placed in such a
>> way that vendors writing closed-source applications can use our
>> platform without licensing costs (unlike QT).
> I think _you_ missed the important point: It's the other way around.
> They _need_ a decent platform.
> We don't need them.
> We don't need Adobe Acrobat. We don't need Adobe Photoshop.
> We don't need Microsoft Office and other parafernalia.
> We don't need DB2, Informix, etc...
> Rather it's the other way around...

Many of our _users_ need for those systems to work well with free
software. Yes, they need free-software alternatives even more, but we
don't need to kick them repeatedly in the balls while they are trying to
make the transition. GNOME is _the_ platform for all, not just for a small
group of obsessives.

Our platform is LGPL, not GPL. Push for a crazy relicensing referendum or
something if you don't like GNOME's aims.

Murray Cumming
murrayc murrayc com

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]