>Maybe this is a good reason for not having any commercial entity have 100% control of the >commit rights of an open source project. I don't know what is the best solution to prevent >forking and duplication of efforts, especially when commercial interests are involved with >open source projects.
Personally, I have no problem whatsoever of having a commercial entity control the source of an open source project. There are many cases in which companies release source code to software, but they do not necessarily open a SourceForge project and allow anyone to make changes to the source. Just because the project is open source does not tie it to allowing those outside the company to make changes. The project needs to be developed in a coordinated fashion and part of that management could be to only allow employees to make changes to the source. Marc even talks about the myth that open source projects have a "vast amorphous community" that will work on the project and keep its direction focused in his paper entitled White. The goal of the JBG seems to be utilize the large user community to increase stability & innovation through "human collaboration." This can be accomplished without giving commit access to the masses. In the end, I am in full support of the decision to control the source more tightly by the JBG and do not see the need to dissociate commercial entities from open source projects. That's my 2 cents. Peter ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
