[openbeos] Re: [Glasselevator-talk] Re: Glasselevator-talkdigest, Vol 1 #3 - 3 msgs (themes and other apps)...
- From: "Michael Phipps" <mphipps1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:18:28 -0500
There is certainly some element of truth in this.
But the situation is not as grim as you might think.
First and foremost, I control who contributes to source control. :-)
If someone wants to be problematic, I could deny them that.
Then, if they want to fork the code, that is their choice. But the "main"
branch can and will remain fairly well controlled. OpenSource projects
grow from contributions. Forked code rarely gets those contributions because
the reason for forking was poor.
>Not to sound like an ass, but OSS and Control are mutually exclusive terms.
>Once you place that code under an OpenSource license, it's no longer under
>your control. It's under the control of the community that uses it. If you
>have a 'look and feel' but another dev wants something different, they
>simply hack apart your pretty and time consuming UI elements, throw them on
>the floor and replace them with their own. And for your efforts you might
>get a note in the README, and that assumes you release under a GPL variant
>the enforces that.
>
>Given all of that, and the state of how badly the OSS licenses are actually
>adhered to. Go ask the author of Fink, or a number of other OSS authors
>about the efforts required to pursue people that abuse OSS and the GPL
>variants. I'm sorry but if you think you can control OSS code, you are
>delusional. You can 'guide' but not control.
>
>Andy Satori
>
>On 1/14/02 4:42 AM, "Ithamar R. Adema" <ithamar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> So, lets keep as much _control_ over _what_ we develop and _how_ in
>> our
>> own project, but make the discussion open to outside parties..... (as
>> we've always done up till now)....
>>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
