View Single Post
Old 03 June 2015, 15:09   #198
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Leeds, U.K.
Posts: 38
Originally Posted by TheBilgeRat View Post
Releasing the source doesn't mean you can't be supreme overlord of the branch. If people submit crap patches or "upgrades", nothing prevents you from not taking their contributions. You could even go all Torvalds on them in some heated email exchange.
Not entirely sure why you quoted my post before this, i was referring to situations where people could take the code from an open sourced project, run off with that code and do despicable things with it away from the original author's reach or influence...

Originally Posted by copse View Post
My thoughts on this thread are that if there is something you want source for, then you have several options:
  • Write a clone.
  • Beg someone else to give away all their work in writing the original, or a clone.
  • Pay for someone else to write a clone, or get mutually interested people to pay to get people to get a clone written. Or even pay for the original, paying what it's worth to get it open sourced.
If i ever win the lottery, one of the things i want to do is hire one of those outsourcing companies who occasionally spam with an offer to do programming at bargain basement rates - i'll want them to write a scrolling shoot 'em up for the Spectrum!

Originally Posted by rhester72 View Post
Granted, there are some open-source projects out there (Ex Plus Alpha nee *.emu comes to mind readily) that are "open" but nearly (if not) all contributions from others are ignored or outright rejected, but I do not believe they represent the spirit or common state of open source.
And if i were ever to release the source for something it'd be under the understanding that it's mine and i wouldn't be accepting changes... so probably best that i don't, really. (i would release the outsourced code that way though... =-)
TMR is offline  
Page generated in 0.03952 seconds with 10 queries