From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 11232c,992bfa9d3803bf5b X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,243844de28aa7187 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac39a12d5faf5b14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 10ed7b,243844de28aa7187 X-Google-Attributes: gid10ed7b,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-20 09:41:51 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,misc.misc,comp.lang.java.programmer,talk.bizarre Subject: Re: How Open Source software developers pay the bills, from within a successful such operation (was): Open Source: in conflict with the development process in the Ada community? Date: 20 Apr 2002 09:41:50 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0204200841.2365b39e@posting.google.com> References: <3CB94312.5040802@snafu.de> <4519e058.0204150645.62003096@posting.google.com> <3CBCEB15.E104D1F5@adaworks.com> <35c5c360dfe83cb34ea9648445bd0e95.48257@mygate.mailgate.org> <5ee5b646.0204190620.1902ede@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.244 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1019320911 5230 127.0.0.1 (20 Apr 2002 16:41:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Apr 2002 16:41:51 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22819 misc.misc:6725 comp.lang.java.programmer:148542 talk.bizarre:21973 Date: 2002-04-20T16:41:51+00:00 List-Id: "Kent Paul Dolan" wrote in message news:... One thing that is interesting here is that we are not really an Open Source developer. The idea of open source development is that development is a shared community activity, and that all sorts of people contribute to the development. The advantages of such a model are clear: you get a larger community of people involved in the development. The disadvantages are also clear, you have far less control over the development process. If you follow the gcc development mailing list, you will certainly see both of these effects in action. GNAT Pro is not an open source product in this respect. The development of GNAT Pro is tightly controlled, more tightly controlled indeed internally than is the case in most other software companies. Now there is also an open source development community developing for the FSF version of GNAT at gnu.org, and we participate in this. We hope that we will be able to take advantage of contributions here and eventually have some of them show up in GNAT Pro after going through our rigorous internal process. But it is fairly critical that our internal development process is not open to uncontrolled community contributions. We have heard recently that the Army has a policy against open source development, and while I don't know if this is true, or what the details are, I have some sympathy with the thought behind such a policy. The concern is centered on the disadvantages that can come with uncontrolled development, and this is indeed a real concern. That's why I think the model of commercial closed development will always persist, and what I think the ACT experience has shown is that this is by no means inconsistent with the notions of Free Software and the use of the GPL.