On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote:
> For far too long, people (in this group as well) have inflated "open > source" with artificial attributes. It's odd really, because the wording is > quite precise; the source code is open for inspection, and depending on the > license, open for modification. However, just how the project is governed > is out of the scope of any OSS-license that I am aware of. Couldn't have said it better myself. Open source means... well, you can read the source. That's it. Even Linux, the poster child of open source projects, is extremely closed for contributions (as in "the bar seems impossibly high to contribute"). Actually, most open source projects are like this. The height of that "contribution bar" depends on many factors, among which popularity, complexity and assholeness of the benevolent dictator. Scala is no exception, by the way (I remember Simon himself complaining a few months ago that his simple doc fix pull requests in the Scala documentation were not even receiving a response, much less being merged). -- Cédric -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
