>>>>> "aa" == Anurag Agarwal <anu...@kqinfotech.com> writes:
aa> Every one being part of beta program will have access to
aa> source code
...and the right to redistribute it if they like, which I think is
also guaranteed by the license.
Yes, I agree a somewhat formal beta program could be smart for this
type of software, which can lose large amounts of data, and where
reproducing problems isn't easy because debugging the way analagous to
other software requires shipping around multi-terabyte
possibly-confidential images, so you'd like competent testers so you
can skip this without becoming too frustrated. But I don't see how
anything fitting the definition of ``closed'' is possible with free
software.
Even just asking participants, ``please don't leak our software
outside the beta, even though you've the legal right to do so. If you
do leak it, we'll be unhappy,'' is an implicit threat to retaliate
(ex. by excluding people from further beta releases, which you'll
likely be making in a continuous stream). so the word ``closed''
alone, even without any further discussion, is likely to have a
chilling effect on the software freedom of the beta participants, and
I think this effect is absolutely intended by you, and that it's
wrong. on one hand it's sort of a fine point, but on the other for
the facts on the ground it can matter quite a lot.
Thanks for the effort! and for clarifying that you will always
release matching source along with every binary release you make!
pgpN2VocVYwL0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
