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