On Friday 19 January 2007 13:09, Vihan Pandey wrote:
my thesis is this: just because source is released under some license, that does not make a project a foss project. Or rather a true foss project. The criterion for a true foss project is *not* the license chosen or the fact that the source is available, *but* the development model followed.
Without the source, an open development model is nearly impossible. And without the gpl's protection u are uneccessarily exposing your code to crooked behaviour, atleast in the short and middle term. Java was a very limited exception (providing u made the observation at the precise time), now overtaken by other foss projects.
The closer it is to the bazaar model of development, the better chance it has of surviving. We tend to lose sight of this very often. And why is this important?
Agreed. But they have learnt that gpl is better than a closed licence. They will learn - hopefully before eol , and that is visible on the horizon - that thay also have to open the process.
And it is these one-offs or minor contributions that make up half of wikipedia. A developmental environment that efficiently harvests these 'minor' contributions is a healthy 'fossy' environment. Which is why I dont like the environment provided by mono or mysql where a patch will not be accepted unless copyright is assigned.
agree completely.