final thoughts - bug tracking system
cpressey at catseye.mine.nu
Sat Sep 17 11:43:41 PDT 2005
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 14:56:38 +0200
"Simon 'corecode' Schubert" <corecode at xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> We all develop under BSDL. Why? We obviously like it. We like to
> write real free code. We *want* companies (maybe our own) to take the
> code, to modify it and to make money out of that. And we just trust
> in those companies to give us something back: bug fixes, features,
> That's the basic idea, at least to me. If I'm wrong here, then I
> maybe should change camps.
You're not "wrong", but not everyone shares your vision. I take issue
especially at your choice of words...
I don't "want" companies to take my code and make money from it; I just
don't care. If they do, great! I write "real free" code so that
anyone, companies included, can do WHAT THE HECK EVER they want with it.
And, I don't "trust" companies to give anything back for that. Again, I
just don't care. I would sort of expect that they simply try to make a
profit, what with them being companies and all. They don't even have
to tell the world that they use the code - they can include the BSDL in
the fine print in the back of their user manual, if they like. If they
want to give back - great! But...
> So now there is one company, Atlassian, which accepts this offer.
> They use open source software all over their products. Hooray,
> that's what makes the BSDL developer's heart beat faster.
> And now you don't want to
> take their offer to use this product for free?
. ..I'm certainly not *obliged* to (which is what you make it sound like,
although maybe that wasn't intentional,) any more than I'm obliged to
take free Google t-shirts when they're handed out at my university.
> Strange message to the
> BSD community: "We encourage companies to take our code, but if they
> do so we don't want these products because they are not open source."
I think the message - at least, with the set of assumptions I've
outlined, which differ from the set you've outlined - is closer to "We
prefer, for the purposes of this project, to produce unencumbered code,
and likewise prefer to consume it."
(Which brings me to a point I should probably clarify: the principle on
which I was objecting in my last post was not "open source is da
ultimat0rz", as everyone seemed to assume, what with the bandying about
of religious terms such as "crusade", "anathema", and "RMS". It is
rather about "eating our own dogfood", as the vernacular so colourfully
has it. At the very least, if an open-source project uses closed
commercial tools, the project should be prepared to explain why it isn't
a closed commercial project. And that's not just academic - at this
point I think I could make an *excellent* case for DragonFly following
> The problem with all those bikesheds is that they delay the
> implementation of the *idea* far too long.
Dude, if expediency is what you really care about - we had a bug tracker
up and working, like, a YEAR ago. IIRC it was an instance of Bugzilla
running on Justin's machine before he moved. I'm sure it could have
been moved to leaf and the features you want could have been added since
> Hiten offered to get jira set up. I offer to set it up and
> administrate it.
And Matt veto'ed it. (And I'm pretty sure he would still have veto'ed
it, had Asmodai and I remained slient, like you suggest we should have.)
Had he not veto'ed it, the votes for JIRA would have outnumbered those
against, and it would've gone through.
So what, exactly, is the problem? Is it that we discuss things? Is it
that people wait for ideas to be _unanimously_ agreed to before acting??
Is it that Matt has veto power???
More information about the Kernel