Frank,
You wrote: " I would *prefer* a project coming into incubation with six
developers from six different organizations to one with six developers
all from one organization."
Well put. You said in one sentence what I was trying to say in four (4)
paragraphs.
Landon
-Original Message-
Miles Fidelman wrote:
...
I think I've made this comment before, but it probably bears repeating:
History is a useful indicator. As far as I can tell, most "really
successful" open source projects started out as efforts that had some
serious funding behind them, or something that allowed the
Gilberto,
You made some very interesting observations. Allow me to respond to two (2) of
them:
You wrote: "By contrast, OGC has reduced the motivation for innovation in
issues such as spatial analysis, raster-based GIS, semantics, visualization,
interfaces, and spatio-temporal models."
I am n
> At the moment, I can't think of any "really successful open source
projects" that didn't have their origins with "a network of
partly-funded enthusiast contributors" where the originator didn't have
some form of organizational home and/or a funding stream for the first
few releases of the softwar
Howard Butler wrote:
On May 6, 2008, at 3:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the past i've heard it suggested that really successful open source
projects now need serious organisational backing. They can't be built
by a network of partly-funded enthusiast contributors alone.
I think really su
