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

Bruce Perens bruce at perens.com
Wed Apr 15 15:11:04 UTC 2009

John Cowan wrote:
> Lots of
> projects are managed as cathedrals (or chapels) and properly should be,
> with a single committer or small team working very closely together.
You still need the right to circumvent the cathedral when they go feral. 
For example the story a few years back with David Dawes and the XFree86 
project. The rest of the project collectively walked off and started 
x.org, leaving the then project administrator alone.

> 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.
Yes. But somebody placed on Opensource.org's front page this sentence:

    Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the
    power of distributed peer review and transparency of process.

IMO it is often the case that such a development method is followed, but 
this is an inaccurate explanation of what Open Source is.



More information about the License-review mailing list