Ok, I am new here so please forgive me if I hit a nerve, (or perhaps
smash your entire Cerebellum and world view to bits).
Open Source
Open Source can work. It has a long history.
Value of QS
I have seen over and over people sate that Macs without QS seem
broken.
A big Name
Does QS need a big firm behind it? I don't know? Money doesn't solve
everything.
Perhaps a big Mac based firm would take up the mantle?
Related (see where this might go?)
Does Apple allow employees to use QS?
One could envision QS as the open (hackable)
portion of the codebase and then a fork for a firm to take up and
sell.
While we are on the topic of Apple
I have seen a few posts on the Mac App
store,
it seems people are eager to embrace
this from apple, yet it is brand new.
If so eager to embrace this for an
open source project,
it might work, but you might have
more luck seeing if apple wanted QS as an OS feature.
I think apple can change the
game at anytime,
so one core thing we need is
to be involved in the OS Developer program
so we can make sure Apple
doesn't kill QS at the OS level, or perhaps "break it" is a better
term.
Back to the task(s) at Hand
Anyway I think we need a core team, and that core team then
creates sub teams.
As for the tree and branches, I think once we have a core team we can
agree on a roadmap to 1.0.
and then follow normal open source stable and dev trees.
I mean with the user base and functionality QS could go to 1.0 as is
(IMHO).
Kind regards,
camresu
On Jan 10, 12:42 am, Jordan Kay <[email protected]> wrote:
> I admittedly know very little about the open source movement; but what
> I do know is that Quicksilver a) would never have been started as an
> open source project, and b) only experienced real growth and
> innovation under the fingers of single developer who called it his
> own. The difference in development rate is astounding and, to some,
> surprising, but tho old adage "too many cooks spoil the broth" has
> never been truer.
>
> My question is as follows: once a product becomes open source, is that
> usually it? Have there ever been cases in which a once open-source
> product became proprietary again? Unfortunately I feel like that's
> Quicksilver's only chance of survival at this point. The value have
> having an emotional connection of code that you literally own is
> really quite invaluable. Not too optimistic, but I figured I'd ask.
