Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 6th May 2008 15:15 UTC, submitted by Shlomi Fish
Thread beginning with comment 313225
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-10-10
Hi chris_dk!
Sure, the availability source by itself does not guarantee the software is high-quality. And a lot of high-quality software is binary only or even proprietary.
What I meant to say is that availability of the source and the more liberal its licence is, contribute to the quality of the software. That's because the source allows improvement (enhancements, bug fixes, etc.), studying it to find out how to do things, integration into other FOSS software (including possibly GPL one), usage in "proprietary" contexts (if BSDL or LGPL, etc.), etc. etc.
While having a sub-optimal source licence, won't absolutely prevent your software from being high-quality, having a liberal one will increase the quality a lot.
As I noted below, what I've given are various parameters (or criteria) not a "Must have" checklist.
I hope I made myself clear.