[Fwd: Re: What would work instead of the MXM public license?]

John Cowan cowan at ccil.org
Wed Apr 15 14:47:48 UTC 2009

Russ Nelson scripsit:

> And the goal is not to merely have freely copyable software, but
> instead to have a strong community backing the software, with a
> pyramid consisting of a base of strong, supportive users who document
> their use, document the code, submit bugs, donate money, etc, a
> mid-stage of casual committers, and a peak of committed donors of
> code.

The goal for SOME kinds of open-source software, particularly the bloated
monstrosities which pass for application programs these days.  Lots of
projects are managed as cathedrals (or chapels) and properly should be,
with a single committer or small team working very closely together.

> So, no, a license is just a pre-condition.

But it's the license, and not any other feature, that makes code open
source or closed source.  Open source software development has room for
a huge variety of models besides the much-touted bazaar model.

John Cowan    cowan at ccil.org    http://ccil.org/~cowan
Rather than making ill-conceived suggestions for improvement based on
uninformed guesses about established conventions in a field of study with
which familiarity is limited, it is sometimes better to stick to merely
observing the usage and listening to the explanations offered, inserting
only questions as needed to fill in gaps in understanding. --Peter Constable

More information about the License-review mailing list