[4th Draft] Open Letter to CNRI: Request for clarification
Will Ware
wware at world.std.com
Mon Jul 31 14:44:39 EDT 2000
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Mon Jul 31 14:44:39 EDT 2000
- Previous message (by thread): [4th Draft] Open Letter to CNRI: Request for clarification
- Next message (by thread): [4th Draft] Open Letter to CNRI: Request for clarification
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
You can add my name to the signature list whether or not you take my suggestions. The later drafts are big improvements, primarily in toning down the emotional language of the first draft. Here are some thoughts on this matter. For reference, CNRI's home page is http://www.cnri.reston.va.us/ 1. CNRI legally owns Python, up to version 1.6. You and I don't have any legal rights of any kind in this matter. The user community does not collectively have any legal rights in this matter. We are extremely dependent upon CNRI's good will. 2. CNRI does not need the existing Python user community. But it sounds like they may have future plans for Python. We don't know what those plans are, but CNRI would probably benefit from a cooperative friendly rapport with the user community, given the amount of expertise floating around out here. CNRI may not yet be aware of the size and quality of the user community, so they may be inclined to dismiss the benefits of cooperation. 3. No matter what, we should not alienate or bash CNRI. It's easy to imagine that every large organization with lawyers is another Microsoft, but we only hurt ourselves by establishing an atmosphere of mistrust or suspicion. 4. CNRI may wish to keep secrets, for business reasons or any other reason, and they are under no obligation to disclose those reasons to the user community. This is standard business practice throughout the world. There is nothing to be gained by complaining to them about it. > We are especially interested in the underlying intention of this > change. So we request a plain-English, non-legalese statement > regarding the purpose of that change and the ways in which it > affects Python's use. I see what you're looking for here, and agree that if CNRI discloses (at least partially) their thoughts and plans for Python, it would be a huge step to establishing a cooperative rapport with the community. I'm concerned about the phrase "underlying intention", which hints that you think CNRI is currently being sneaky and hiding something from the user community. You might want to use a phrase like "overall intent", or simply "intent". If CNRI is not yet aware of the benefits of cooperating with the user community, then the best thing to accomplish with this sort of letter is to initiate that cooperation yourself. Remember, you are asking CNRI to do things that they have no legal obligation or business reason to do. You want to be as polite about all this as possible. They don't owe you or me or the user community anything. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Resistance is futile. Capacitance is efficacious. Will Ware email: wware @ world.std.com
- Previous message (by thread): [4th Draft] Open Letter to CNRI: Request for clarification
- Next message (by thread): [4th Draft] Open Letter to CNRI: Request for clarification
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list