[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Friday 11 March 2005 12:27 pm, kong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Can anyone suggest a more appropriate name for that point on the development curve of an open source application
CAREFUL: open source is NOT the same as free software. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html Understand that difference clearly before replying. After you read the FAQ, you can test your knowledge of Free Software licensing with the GNU quiz. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html That may answer your query. Essentially, depending on the open source licence used, it may well be possible for the problems you describe in "open source" - it is NOT likely with free software, indeed I would say it is impossible.
when its popularity has created a user base that goes well beyond the development community, who are so busy attending to the upcoming release and feature set of the next version that unattended problems with (probably boring bits of) the old release
I know of no such project. Did you have a specific one in mind? Generally, a well supported / popular project will include a number of 'lurking' developers and the only time a project would get into the mess you describe is if those lurkers were consistently ignored by the existing developers when things start to go wrong. This is often solved by forking the project - something that is specifically allowed in free software and may be impossible under certain open source licences.
Further, would there be a market for a company that takes money to provide telephone support
Yes.
and accept blame for OSS problems along the lines of: "Yes, sorry, it does eat data/fall over/not work, but all your concerns will be addressed in the latest version, due for release in 3 months,
Yes.
just keep sending the cheques..."
No - development can always be separated from commercial support when the project is licenced under the GNU GPL in the first place. This is another reminder to anyone dipping their toes into development: ALWAYS make it absolutely clear how your code/patch is licenced. i.e. understand licences BEFORE you send any code anywhere. Every single file you ever contribute should include your copyright statement AND any licence notices. Before you create a single file, write the copyright section and licence notice. Your IDE may do it for you, e.g Anjuta creates content like: /*************************************************************************** * qsf-backend.c * * Sat Jan 1 15:07:14 2005 * Copyright 2005 Neil Williams * xxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (amended for the list) ****************************************************************************/ /* * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or * (at your option) any later version. * * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the * GNU Library General Public License for more details. * * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software * Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA. */ Simply by giving a filename and checking a few boxes in a dialog.
which is a lie, but all you get from at least one major vendor anyway.
No. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.dcglug.org.uk/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/isbnsearch/ http://www.neil.williamsleesmill.me.uk/ http://www.biglumber.com/x/web?qs=0x8801094A28BCB3E3
Attachment:
pgp00007.pgp
Description: PGP signature