Open letter to Guido van Rossum

[jerry_spicklemire at my-deja.com]

  "Arthur Siegel" wrote:
>
> Perhaps your shop, which sounds:
> a) substantial
> b) for profit
>
> consider doing what has traditionally been done when a technical
> solution requiring an impled or express warranty of fitness is
> necessary - arrange to engage an appopriate shop in that business
> to provide it.
>

This suggestion makes perfect sense, in cases where Python has
already been adopted by the substantial, for profit shop in question.
One could then assume that Python is recognized for it's merits, and
that the "customer" realizes that, as with any Open Source tools, it
is easy and effective to contribute by scratching your own itch, and
returning the resulting solution to the community.

However, I have no problem relating to the original "letter", since
I, like many Python fans, have faced resistance when attempting to
use Python and it's progeny (Zope), and to have them accepted in a
for profit setting.

Lack of clarity in the process of creating and evolving Open Source
is a grave cause of misunderstanding and an easy target for FUD
mongers. It may not be easy, or even likely , but it would certainly
help to move toward a development model that values coordination of
effort, and strives to foster cooperation wherever possible.

There is some good news, in the form of recently arisen examples such
as SourceForge, CoSource, etc. To me these represent one more step in
the many "new things under the sun" that have been sparked by the
IntraNet, and GNU. The need for straightforward mechanisms that support
Open Source, and make it easy for non-developers to see benefits from
participation, has begun to be filled.

Later,
Jerry S.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.