Main characteristic of traditional open source products to me is that
the product is developed and maintained by a community of developers.
This results in many eyeballs, many bugfixers, lots of public
discussion, bazaar vs cathedral etc.
exactly.
Addressing products that are developed by just a few people within a
organization and are made downloadable afterwards as 'open source', is
not really contributing to the clearness of meaning of the word. It
somehow feels to me the word is being hijacked. Couldn't we just call
these things 'shareware' or something else ?
The problem is that we are just listing 3th party applications. So it is
not up to the MMBase community to decide that external organisations
should name their applications open source or shareware. Maybe in the
future we can indicate in our list how active the community of the 3th
party application is. But our first step should be to get the current
list up to date. So please inform Rob van Maris, or Daniel Ockeloen if
your application isn't listed yet. In my opinion the list can also
contain commercial products as longas the product has any relevance to
MMBase.
Rob
