On 09/05/12 21:43, deadalnix wrote:
Le 09/05/2012 21:19, Nick Sabalausky a écrit :
"deadalnix"<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I'd that the most important part of FOSS isn't the license but the
process. And we are not here yet.
How so?
We have a botleneck in accepting contributions.
To an extent that seems to parallel most projects with a small team of core
developers -- if you don't have enough people with the right combination of
expertise, understanding and time commitment, it's difficult to effectively cope
with the volume of bug reports, feature requests and potential new contributors.
That said, I don't think you can entirely divorce contribution issues from the
licence. One of the things that allows FOSS projects to scale effectively is
that they have multiple distribution channels and (often) multiple partially
independent development teams. E.g. if you take the Linux kernel, you have many
different distros, many of which have internal kernel dev teams; you have
multiple different ways to get a working copy of the kernel (the kernel.org
website, your distro of choice, your Android mobile phone, your web host, your
embedded device ...), all of which create corresponding points of entry for
contribution.
That spread of 3rd-party distribution and modification _does_ rely on the
licence, as those suppliers need to be able to freely work on the code without
needing to go through a single upstream point of contribution, and they need to
have certainty that the permission to do so is not conditional or potentially
able to be rescinded.
