On Sat, 2006-12-02 at 21:42 -0800, Heroine Virtual Ltd. wrote: > LMA has briefly loaned dual Opteron systems over the years and allowed > development > on new hardware to proceed until prices became more affordable. The > "vital" part of the > assistance is as much AMD, IBM, HP, Compaq, Digital, and Pioneer as it > is LMA. > > > The safety in OSS is it's transparency IMHO. > > The fact that anyone can download source code and "taint" it is hardly a > safety feature.
Do you mean "tainted" as in "edited by someone who knows something that he learned while under an NDA"? > If you really want transparency, you need to restrict who downloads > it and works on it without community involvement. It is rather uncommon to have revision control systems which accept anonymous check-ins. The most obvious weak link is between the source and the binary; the majority of the users don't compile themselves. And the binaries built from the cinelerra-cv Subversion are built by several people, most of them without svn write access. On a related subject: Would you accept a patch including the GPL license boilerplate into all the source files of Cinelerra? At least the ones that are your original work? -- Herman Robak _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing list [email protected] https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
