On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Ryan McDougall <sempu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Perfect example of where your understanding is misplaced: no, open > source license != open source project. An open source license only > requires source code drops. A true community requires equal > participation. It's the difference between apartheid and democracy. > > Let me know if you'd like a deeper elucidation.
Of everything in the post you quoted, you single out the chance to take a swipe at semantics. Okay, first: you're wrong. open source refers to availability of the source for an end product. This is a well-defined term, and an open source project is open. Many, but not all open source projects have open design and/or open development as characteristics of the project. These are also well-understood terms. Second, read the rest of the post and see if you can spot the irony. The deeper elucidation you're offering is on what I'm trying to advance by explaining the benefits of constructive, meaningful discussion. I'm trying to tell you how you can encourage more open design and open development. If you want equal participation, you gain it by merit - by acting as an equal. We're working to provide every kind of opportunity for you to participate as a peer, and what you do with that opportunity will be up to you. This isn't even an "us" vs "them" thing. If a Linden tried to involve himself in a project by taking pot shots and grousing instead of furthering the project, it wouldn't get him any closer to peer participation either. If one of the offices became notorious for laying grief on projects, a Linden would do best to distance himself from that office or to help fix things in that office instead of defending its behavior to the hilt. What's your choice? _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
