[OT] Closed-standards & NDAs (Was: i2o...)

James Mastros (abszero@epix.net)
Sun, 20 Jul 1997 00:23:53 -0400


At 09:09 AM 7/18/97 -0700, B. James Phillippe wrote:
>In any case, however (and in my own words), I oppose this
>"closed-standard" technology on the grounds that it is a violation of
>freedom of speach... It is not within any one organization's right to
>create a canvas on which only the select may paint, and which may not be
>given to the world as free artwork.
>
>-bp

I'm an anarchist.
I think that it is certainly within their rights to create a "standard"
that they do not share with people without them paying. It is also a bad
idea. Not only is it just morally sick and wrong, it simply doesn't make
money. If developing a host OS requires a NDA and $5k every year you spend
in development _and for as long as you sell the product_, as does writing a
device driver, and same for an application that uses the device driver,
then there is no reason for fifteen thousand dollars and however many years
it takes to develop this all, then applications will use NDAless APIs, and
since there won't be any software, why write i2o drivers, and since there
are no i20 drivers, why make OSes that support the spec? I really and
truly think that the i2o plan will flop unless they modify their Grand Plan
to make the spec free.
I'm a capitalist.

-=- James Mastros