> > Why do you say Trustware is "closed"?
>
> let's say I don't see it fully open, then...

I really don't see how you can say that having 100% of the source code to
something and the ability to contribute any fixes or modifications and have
them adopted as quickly as possible isn't fully open. The only next step
that I don't take is allow people to fork it and start calling it their own
derivative.

> > Anyone who wishes to participate in
> > the development of the product gets the full source and there is no

charge.

>
> I don't think IBO is advertised in this way.

Have you read the license agreement on my web-site? The only thing right now
is people need to request the full source be sent to them. I don't make it
directly available on the net. That is changing soon. I plan to have a
custom on-line system so that people can register and immediately receive
the sources without paying anything.

> In addition, the
> development guidelines of a trustware project (let's take IBO as an
> example) are more strict than those of a true OS product. I bet the
> percentage of code that hasn't been written by you in IBO is less than
> 5%.

What do you mean by strict? Actually I think I have tended to err a little
on the liberal side. Rather than looking at the percentage of the existing
code base, I think you should consider the percentage of acceptance of
submissions. With IBO I know I am well over 95% acceptance. I have also gone
to great lengths to merge in, clean up, maintain and support things that
others have contributed. I also dare say that IBO is probably more like 15%
contributed as it stands right now.

> Could be just my impression, though. I am not following IBO as much as I
> would like.
> In short, trustware seems to me a valid variation of a closed source
> model, rather than a variation of an open source model.

I think your perception is totally wrong here.

> I was fearing
> that others may be kept from participating in the further development of
> Marathon if it was put under trustware. This does not mean I think it
> should not be done, or it is not the best thing to do; just been
> expressing a worry.

Trustware should do more to encourage development efforts. If I can ever get
the trustware model to the full expansion that I intend on doing, those who
get involved stand to get a slice of the revenue. But, I think more than
that, they will know there are funds to back and drive the product. With IBO
I have funds to do a lot of things that otherwise I would never be able to
accomplish. If IBO were to have been open sourced a few years ago it would
be dead now, I know that for a fact. IBX would also be worse off because
they wouldn't have as high standards to try and measure up to.

> > Where are the disadvantages in this?
>
> Perhaps people don't get it?
> (perhaps it's just me that doesn't get it)

I really think you don't and I think you are (unfortunately) not alone.

> Ciao

Regards,
Jason Wharton
CPS - Mesa AZ
http://www.ibobjects.com