On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:48 AM, SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
Hola Arturo,
At 07:34 19-08-2013, Arturo Servin wrote:
Academic might work. "Open source" not so much as other
mentioned. Does
"Big Corporation" doing Open Source apply?
I was tempted to propose "non-profit", but also there are
organizations
with large budgets. And profit driven ones with not much money.
"Open source" is difficult. As people pointed out "open source" does not
necessarily mean free. "open source" does not necessarily mean
"non-profit". I used the term loosely. If hypothetically speaking, there
was formal action, a clearer term might be needed.
Irrespective of my views, "big corporation" is what helps the IETF
operate. If "big corporation" doing open source applies it will become a
problem for the IETF. The main issue is why should the IETF subsidize a
particular group. It can also be argued that it is not fair to subsidize a
particular group.
If getting open source implementations is a desirable goal then the way to
address that goal is for ISOC or other parties with funds to provide
bursaries to the developers. Isn't that the reason they got the $$$ .org
money?
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/