Andrew,
On 27 Jun 2007, at 13:32, Andrew Smith wrote:
> Alan Penn wrote:
>
>> This in itself adds another layer of complexity to the whole project
>> of coding, and one which (I think) may only be amenable to formal
>> code management, systems engineering, top down control, rather than
>> the open market place of open source - everyone 'doing their thang' -
>> perhaps I am wrong though...
>
> Well, many open-source projects are run on the basis of having a
> stable
> official distribution of the core, and and a modular structure.
> Typically these do have formal code management, and a central
> controlling team.
>
> At the same time, they also develop within the open market place of
> open
> source: for example, anyone can take the R-project core code, muck
> about
> with it, and release it as their own version - in that sense, the core
> remains open. Few people would use *that* version of the core
> unless it
> was stable, reliable and proven, at which time it might merge into the
> official stable core. The other way to get things into the core is to
> make significant contributions in the open borderlands of the closed
> official core, and build a reputation as being able to meet a need.
...and then of course, there are projects where software built on top
of the open source core is proprietary, so anyone can release plug-
ins and extensions (subject to the licence allowing this) which are
paid for - Mac OS X is a perfect example of this, as its core kernel
is open source and all the stuff on top of it isn't. This could also
suit - having a basic level package which is open source, and
extensions for certain fields and uses which can be made available
free for academic/non commercial use but which are not "open".
--
Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
transcience, 72 Staplehurst, BRACKNELL RG12 8DD
|