Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 30th Oct 2009 22:42 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones Mozilla has released the first beta release of Firefox 3.6, which comes with some nice Windows 7 integration features. More specifically, the Firefox 3.6 beta integrates with the new taskbar in Windows 7.
Thread beginning with comment 392153
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by tobyv
by CrLf on Sat 31st Oct 2009 12:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by tobyv"
CrLf
Member since:
2006-01-03

It's open source. If upstream want it they can just get it.


What? It's not upstream that has to go around finding stuff to integrate. It's the ones who create new stuff that have to offer them to upstream projects. This is what it means to be a good citizen in the open source community.

Upstream projects are just the reference code base, they are not people. The people are whoever contributes.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by tobyv
by ple_mono on Sat 31st Oct 2009 16:48 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by tobyv"
ple_mono Member since:
2005-07-26

What? It's not upstream that has to go around finding stuff to integrate. It's the ones who create new stuff that have to offer them to upstream projects. This is what it means to be a good citizen in the open source community.

Upstream projects are just the reference code base, they are not people. The people are whoever contributes.


Please, if someone doesn't share your exact definition of freedom, that does not automatically mean they are not good citizens. It's a simple as that.

One could also say it's much more complicated than that. Do you demand from a child that he/she gives back to society the instant they are given something? Does it matter *how and what* that individual gives back eventually? Who will decide what the "giving back" is ultimately worth?

The "open source community" does not have a strict definition for what it means to be a good citizen. You may, however, and i can certainly respect that. Just don't make it sound like you represent the whole "open source community".

Edited 2009-10-31 16:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by tobyv
by CrLf on Sat 31st Oct 2009 18:57 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by tobyv"
CrLf Member since:
2006-01-03

If you don't want to contribute back to the original project, and the license doesn't force you to (few do), then you don't have to. You are not even forced to improve the software at all.

However, if you do make and distribute changes but don't try to merge them upstream, you are not doing anything wrong, but you are also not being a good citizen either. You are taking what upstream gives you, but you are only making the improvements available to your sub-community.

Expecting upstream developers to go around looking for stuff to integrate is just like saying "we take your stuff for free, but if you want our improvements you get off your ass and come get them". Doesn't sound nice, does it?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by tobyv
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sat 31st Oct 2009 20:00 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by tobyv"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

The "open source community" does not have a strict definition for what it means to be a good citizen. You may, however, and i can certainly respect that. Just don't make it sound like you represent the whole "open source community".


You've described one of the reasons why so many businesses avoid open source software like the plague. There's formally-defined license terms, any reasonable business person would assume "I've complied with the terms of the license, so everything's A-OK."

But NOOOOOOO, there are these additional unspoken obligations that exist only the minds of the "community." Despite being vague and undefined, hordes of angry GNU/Freetards will rake anyone over the coals if they don't meet those imaginary "obligations." And when you boil it down, most of the "obligations" are along the lines of "give me anything I want for free, and by the way what's taking you so long?"

So you have a community where the collective sense of self-entitlement is only exceeded by its collective anti-commerce mentality. Most businesses take one look, and run in the opposite direction (as they should).

Reply Parent Score: 0