 |
 |
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