>>>>> "jcm" == James C McPherson <james.mcpher...@sun.com> writes: >>>>> "dm" == David Magda <dma...@ee.ryerson.ca> writes:
jcm> What I can say, however, is that "open source" does not always jcm> equate to requiring "open development". +1 To maintain what draws me to free software, you must * release binaries and source at the same time that also means none of this bullshit where you send someone a binary of your work for ``testing''. BSD developers do this all the time not really meaning anything bad by it, but for CDDL or GPL both by law and by custom, you do ``testing'' then you get to see source, period. * allow free enough access to the source that whoever gets it can fork and continue development under any organizing process they want. The organizing process for development is also worth talking about, but for me it isn't such a clear political movement. Even the projects that unlike Solaris have always been open, where openness is their core goal above anything else, still benefit from openbsd hackathons, the .nl HAR camp, and other meetings where insiders who know each other personally sequester themselves in physical proximity and privately work on something which they release all at once when the camping trip is over. Private development branches can be good, and certainly don't scare me away from a project the same way as intentional GPL incompatibility, closed-source stable branches, proprietary installer-maker build scripts, scattering of binary blobs throughout the tree, selling hardware as a VAR then dropping the ball getting free drivers out of the OEM's, and so on. There are other organizing things I absolutely do have a problem with. For example, attracting discussion to censored web forums (which on OpenSolaris we do NOT have because here the forums are just extra-friendly mailing list archives plus a posting interface for web20 idiots, but many Linux subprojects do have censored forums). And PR-expurgated read-only bug databases (which OpenSolaris does have while Ubuntu, Debian, Gentoo, u.s.w. do not). There's a second problem with GPL at Akamai and Google. Suppose Greenbytes wrote dedup changes but didn't release their source, then started selling deduplicated hosted storage over vlan in several major telco hotels. I'd have a political/community-advocacy problem with that, and probably no legal remedy.
pgplo4voDJeYe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
