On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Soft Linden <s...@lindenlab.com> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Ryan McDougall <sempu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Perfect example of where your understanding is misplaced: no, open >> source license != open source project. An open source license only >> requires source code drops. A true community requires equal >> participation. It's the difference between apartheid and democracy. >> >> Let me know if you'd like a deeper elucidation. > > Of everything in the post you quoted, you single out the chance to > take a swipe at semantics.
No, I take a shot at the heart of the problem: making opened code drops is not developing software in an open manner. > Okay, first: you're wrong. open source refers to availability of the > source for an end product. This is a well-defined term, and an open > source project is open. Many, but not all open source projects have > open design and/or open development as characteristics of the project. > These are also well-understood terms. Opened source code is a necessary but not sufficient condition to meet the commonly understood meanings of open source *software* or open source *projects* or open source *communities*. If you really want semantics, consider "opened" is perfect tense, while "open" is imperfect. Snowglobe is a Bantustan. Considering all the trouble you've had with your project, it's a little awkward being lectured on openness from LL. > Second, read the rest of the post and see if you can spot the irony. > The deeper elucidation you're offering is on what I'm trying to > advance by explaining the benefits of constructive, meaningful > discussion. I'm trying to tell you how you can encourage more open > design and open development. If you want equal participation, you gain > it by merit - by acting as an equal. We're working to provide every > kind of opportunity for you to participate as a peer, and what you do > with that opportunity will be up to you. Open source isn't a choice to be open or closed. The fact that you think the community has to beg developers to stop being exclusionary is dumbfounding. LL has had years to figure out how to make a community, and it's inability to do so has cost other people real time and real money. If you read my email, I'm not interested in how to humbly coax LL's good will on bended knee -- I'm wondering why the heck any even hangs around waiting for the leopard to change it's spots! People looking for open design and development should really have learned their lesson by now. > This isn't even an "us" vs "them" thing. If a Linden tried to involve > himself in a project by taking pot shots and grousing instead of > furthering the project, it wouldn't get him any closer to peer > participation either. If one of the offices became notorious for > laying grief on projects, a Linden would do best to distance himself > from that office or to help fix things in that office instead of > defending its behavior to the hilt. > > What's your choice? > My choice is to work a real open source community, taking contributions, making software, now. Your choice is perpetuate a dishonesty that sometime in the distant future, if everyone plays nice enough, their contributions *might* be relevant LL. The real choice here is for the undecided. _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
