On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 03:35:37 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 22:15:23 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 5/9/12 3:51 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Yeah. The lack of open sourceness for the backend is pretty
> much complete
> FUD.
The problem is, the damage is there and is real. It's like in
those
crazy situations - an allegation of harassment still affects a
teacher's
career, even if there's a simple explanation. The only answer
to "is it
open source?" can be an unqualified "yes".
Well, that's what FUD does. It creates Fear Uncertainty and
Doubt without
being backed by facts. It just creates damage. So, the
situation itself
shouldn't be a problem, but people keep bringing it up anyway,
which _does_
cause us problems.
I wish we could get rid of this crappy backend situation.
Yeah, but I don't know how. As long as Semantec has the rights
to it and won't
change its license, we don't have much choice - not unless we
want to replace
the whole thing.
- Jonathan M Davis
It's a crazy idea I know, but maybe we could, as a community, buy
the rights from Symantec. Blender was a close-source program
originally and the open-source community raised money to buy the
source code from the defunct company that made Blender.
