On Tue, 2002-05-28 at 14:29, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Let us call it this way:
They are definitely _not_ _going_ the Open Source / Free Software way:
They are Open Source -> Yes
The software they create benefits from OSS/FS development paradigms -> NO
I disagree with you sorry, but I think it is the other way.
Open Source Movement has put all the emphasis into promoting the collaborative superior force and all other merely technical merits of the so called Open Source, when RedHat do not accept changes in their own tree they simply choose not to exploit one of the supposed advantages of Open Source however they still fulfill both OS definition and FS definition.
Do the software they create benefits from OSS development paradigm? maybe be not, but I do not care about OSS, we do not speak of OSS on this list.
The main improvements with OSS/FS is (intended to be) the fact that other OSS/FS development efforts can/will be used to enhance a specific program.
The main OSS goal maybe effort sharing, but the main goal of FS is not a technical one, the main goal of FS is _user_ freedom! This is the root of the difference between the two movement and the reason why they are different even if they share many things.
If RH insists in not integrating other OSS/FS parts, they are definitely not a OSS/FS company but only just another company that makes Source available.
No they are an FS company that take in high account both technical and legal maintainability of their own software in my opinion.
You are still free to distribute a package with your own modification without any problem. They do not only offer the source code, but also offer you the freedom to do what you want with it. Who are you to dictate the terms a company or an individual must accept patches?
That said, I would prefer any company to adopt a policy to accept good patches without requiring copyright assignment but that's their own choice, I would not like to see anyone dictate it.
Simo.