On Monday, August 19, 2013 09:35:25 Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
On Aug 18, 2013, at 8:04 PM, SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
On reading the second paragraph of the above message I see that you and I
might have a common objective. You mentioned that you don't know how to
do that beyond what is done now. I suggested a rate for people with an
open source affiliation. I did not define what open source means. I
think that you will be acting in good faith and that you will be able to
convince your employer that it will not make you look good if you are
listed in a category which is intended to lessen the burden for open
source developers who currently cannot attend meetings or who attend
meetings on a very limited budget.
But my point was more that "open source" is meaningless, and not what I
think we're missing/need. I agree we need more developers (at least in RAI
it would help), but whether the things they develop are open source or not
doesn't matter. Developers of open source are no better or worse than
those of closed source. And their source code "openness" is not tied to
their ability to pay or not, either.
They aren't equivalent. A developer of a Free/Open implementation can openly
show/discuss the code related to development issues associated with protocol
development. That's often more useful than hand waving about implementation
issues that can't be shared. Not that proprietary implementations don't
server to inform the process at all, but it's not equivalent to what can be
accomplished with a Free/Open implementation.
Note: I'm not claiming this should change anyone's mind about discounts.
Scott K