|Re: [IBO] Open Source Marathon
> > Why do you say Trustware is "closed"?I really don't see how you can say that having 100% of the source code to
> let's say I don't see it fully open, then...
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
> > Anyone who wishes to participate incharge.
> > the development of the product gets the full source and there is no
>Have you read the license agreement on my web-site? The only thing right now
> I don't think IBO is advertised in this way.
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, theWhat do you mean by strict? Actually I think I have tended to err a little
> 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
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 II think your perception is totally wrong here.
> 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 was fearingTrustware should do more to encourage development efforts. If I can ever get
> 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.
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?I really think you don't and I think you are (unfortunately) not alone.
> Perhaps people don't get it?
> (perhaps it's just me that doesn't get it)
CPS - Mesa AZ