Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 15th Oct 2005 15:56 UTC
RISC OS The debate over whether or not RISC OS should be open sourced took another turn this week when Peter Naulls argued that "certain parts" of the OS could be released under an open source licence. The State-side coder behind various ports including Firefox said this would ideally include "crucial parts that affect all users, even if they don't realise it, parts that can be created from scratch and made much better than the Acorn original, and parts which can managed by specific developers who already understand them well."
Thread beginning with comment 45677
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Open Sez Me.
by Celerate on Sun 16th Oct 2005 06:31 UTC in reply to "Open Sez Me."
Member since:

No, but it doesn't hurt to ask.

I consider it a good thing that people weigh the advantages and disadvantages of making their projects open source software; however, I have also seen such arguments get to the point where a project gets forked or looses half it's developers. When the developers decided to work on RISC OS it was not OSS as far as I know, therefore they can ask for a change in license but shouldn't expect it.

Talks of making making something available under an open source license isn't a bad thing, if a big enough majority agree to make it OSS then there's no damage. Damage occurs when radicals either for or against making it OSS try to harm the project itself because of the chosen license.

Reply Parent Score: 1