> One of the problems we have had in tech is that there aren’t large monetary incentives to create and sustain open protocols. If they are open they cannot be easily monetized by traditional means.
Protocols should not be monetized. They exist for interoperability. Monetizing protocols is bad, because it's aimed at monopoly which always results in stagnation rather than progress.
Of course lock-in crooks like using closed / non-free protocols to control the market. But it's evil.
> OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.
Protocols should not be monetized. They exist for interoperability. Monetizing protocols is bad, because it's aimed at monopoly which always results in stagnation rather than progress.
Of course lock-in crooks like using closed / non-free protocols to control the market. But it's evil.
> OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.
Source: http://www.catb.org/esr/halloween/halloween1.html