|
So the cream floats to the top; just like folk music. If 'foo-tastic' is all that, then it's a trademarked brand (like Java) and program core is foo-tastic.com. If a commercial interest (or any other interest) makes it better to the point of foo-who?, well maybe it wasn't all that 'killer' of an application. If it's a minor improvement it won't be worth re-branding it to compete with it's PD rootstock, particularly as the software paradigm morphs to services. What's with this contractural social engineering thing? Why is it we have to convince or encourage people to develop software? What's this all about? Look at how many people are publishing PD to the web. God, how many natural language pieces have you or I published to the ether without even giving thought to copyrights or licenses? In a lot of ways, this is all just silly. Information wants
to be free. It's true of written word, music, and computer code. It was like pulling teeth getting it through the thick heads of BBS authors that they needed to kick down the code. Their whole trip was they wanted to be rock stars like Bill Gates and if they released the code, the bad guys (anarchists?) would steal it (and make it better?). Indy software developers had no sense of 'brand'. --I want to finish this reply later, Mitch. I gotta go night night. Don't go away. :) Hey- have you ever heard of Merl Saunders (musician)? -JCJ |
