On 02/11/2007, Casper.Dik at sun.com <Casper.Dik at sun.com> wrote: > > >On 02/11/2007, Roy T. Fielding <fielding at gbiv.com> wrote: > >> To release is the most important decision made by an open source > >> project because it is the point at which they are most likely to be > >> subject to the laws regarding copyright, trademark, and patent > >> infringement, not to mention architectural commitments. It is > >> therefore required that a vote take place and that at least three > >> public +1s be received from the core contributors. > > > >Then were are going to get nowhere fast; the constitution must be changed. > > > >Projects must be free to release early and often with prototypes. > > > >Prototypes by their very nature should be free of architectural > >commitments and a breeding ground for new ideas. > > Prototypes yes, releases no.
The lines between release and prototype are awfully blurry. Especially if you store an iso in a code repository. Is the instant something is committed to a public source repository? It would seem so by Roy's broad definition of public availability. However, I'm fairly certain he doesn't intend that. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall
