Fri Jan 19 13:55:55 IST 2007

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.


More information about the Linuxers mailing list