[sldev] Upcoming viewer releases?

[Dale Glass]

On Thursday 30 August 2007 17:34:38 Dzonatas wrote:
> It would be Open Source if we all had access to the process to produce
> those releases. The process, instead, is kept internal, which is not
> open to outsiders, until there is a source drop and the label slapped on
> it called Open Source.
>
> That is not how Open Source works. That is how free software works.
Er, no. "Open Source" refers to source licensing requirements. Same as "Free 
Software". Only OSS is more pragmatic, and Free Software is more idealistic. 

What you're talking about is development models, which vary widely among OSS 
software. You have things like XFree which was very closed to contributors, 
and Linux which is very open. You can also find OSS software with no 
maintainer at all because they got bored/died/etc.

> For LL, it is backwards, they want to produce something as internal
> first and then release that as Open Source. Just because the source code
> is free doesn't mean it is Open Source. There needs to be the whole
> process of open design and collaboration in order to produce releases.
In the larger scheme of things, what LL wants isn't that important.

Since it's released under the GPL2, LL relinquished any hope of absolute 
control over the project they might have had. They can certainly try to 
control the development process, but we don't have to let them if we don't 
want to.

At any time, we could organize and fork the source. Then if a superior viewer 
came out of it, eventually that fork could become the defacto standard. A 
situation where LL doesn't run the development process but merely contributes 
to it is quite possible. Just like IBM has people working on the Linux kernel 
without any special authority.

This for example happened with gcc in the past, and with XFree more recently. 
People got fed up with the XFree development process and forked it into Xorg. 
Now XFree is effectively dead. They've still got their mailing lists and 
organization and such, but nobody really cares, as every distribution I can 
think of switched to Xorg. 

Now, I hope we don't get to this point because I'm sure it'd involve lots of 
confusion, drama and endless arguments before the dust settles down, but it's 
a possibility that will always exist, and LL wouldn't be able to do much 
about it.

My point is, again, that it doesn't really matter all that much what LL does 
or doesn't. The source's license is more than enough that if things aren't 
going the way we'd like, we've got more than enough power to set them right.


> As you see in Netscape, it does not control what does and does not get
> into the Mozilla development. Nobody need to sign an agreement with
> Netscape in order to produce code for Mozilla.
Sure they do. OSS doesn't imply "development by democracy". Linus is for 
example called the "benevolent dictator" and he certainly often tells people 
he isn't going to acept their contributions.


>
> > I have one, Nicholaz Beresford has another.
>
> Hmm, that kinda avoided the point.
>
> What do you think Open Source means?

http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

So let's compare for example against my viewer:

Free redistribution? Yes, as per GPL2
Source code? http://svn.daleglass.net
Derived works allowed? Yes, as per GPL2
Integrity of the author's source code? This is something that may be 
restricted, but which the GPL2 doesn't. So good as well.
No discrimination against persons or groups? Ok, none
No discrimination against fields of endeavor? Ok, none
Distribution of license? Yes, as per GPL2
License is not specific to the product? Not specific, ok
License must not restrict other software? Ok, it doesn't
License must be technology neutral? Ok.

Same goes for LL's source really.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20070830/3fb5e95c/attachment-0001.pgp