Comments on: Is releasing the code always important? http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2007/01/05/is-releasing-the-code-always-important/ Just another GNOME Blogs weblog Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:18:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Matt Lee http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2007/01/05/is-releasing-the-code-always-important/comment-page-1/#comment-749 Matt Lee Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2007/01/05/is-releasing-the-code-always-important/#comment-749 My argument would be, even if nobody uses it, or one person uses it, even if it's a bitch to install, I can still see no reason to not release things. Look at Slashcode, and the few sites that actually use it, and yet it powers a site that is massively popular - we don't have five Slashdots, but we do have MacSlash and Technocrat, both scratching itches that Slashdot doesn't. My argument would be, even if nobody uses it, or one person uses it, even if it’s a bitch to install, I can still see no reason to not release things. Look at Slashcode, and the few sites that actually use it, and yet it powers a site that is massively popular – we don’t have five Slashdots, but we do have MacSlash and Technocrat, both scratching itches that Slashdot doesn’t.

]]> By: John Nilsson http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2007/01/05/is-releasing-the-code-always-important/comment-page-1/#comment-750 John Nilsson Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2007/01/05/is-releasing-the-code-always-important/#comment-750 Two comments:<p/>1. It doesn't need to be a tarball, anonymous CVS or equivalent would do.<p/>2. In the case of launchpad access to the code would at least let people produce patches. Two comments:

1. It doesn’t need to be a tarball, anonymous CVS or equivalent would do.

2. In the case of launchpad access to the code would at least let people produce patches.

]]> By: Henri Bergius http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2007/01/05/is-releasing-the-code-always-important/comment-page-1/#comment-751 Henri Bergius Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2007/01/05/is-releasing-the-code-always-important/#comment-751 While I agree with most of your points, it should be noted that there is quite a big difference between the source of some random website, and the source of a major piece of free software development infrastructure being closed.<p/>If Launchpad wants to become the central point of free software project collaboration, it just must be free. Only that way the various communities can feel secure enough to switch to it. While I agree with most of your points, it should be noted that there is quite a big difference between the source of some random website, and the source of a major piece of free software development infrastructure being closed.

If Launchpad wants to become the central point of free software project collaboration, it just must be free. Only that way the various communities can feel secure enough to switch to it.

]]> By: Mikael Hallendal http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2007/01/05/is-releasing-the-code-always-important/comment-page-1/#comment-752 Mikael Hallendal Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2007/01/05/is-releasing-the-code-always-important/#comment-752 While I do agree to the business and technical point of view in your entry you forget to mention the political aspect (that Henri brings up).<p/>Launchpad targets being a central point for free software development. In order to be it really has to be free itself. Of course, this is the argument that could convince Canonical that it's in their business interest to make it so.<p/>Many users though have very little understanding in the costs that comes with open sourcing something. It's an investment like any other in that respect, you invest and hope it will return the investment and be profitable. While I do agree to the business and technical point of view in your entry you forget to mention the political aspect (that Henri brings up).

Launchpad targets being a central point for free software development. In order to be it really has to be free itself. Of course, this is the argument that could convince Canonical that it’s in their business interest to make it so.

Many users though have very little understanding in the costs that comes with open sourcing something. It’s an investment like any other in that respect, you invest and hope it will return the investment and be profitable.

]]> By: Tom http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2007/01/05/is-releasing-the-code-always-important/comment-page-1/#comment-753 Tom Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2007/01/05/is-releasing-the-code-always-important/#comment-753 "... unless your application is truly special ..." like mozilla? “… unless your application is truly special …” like mozilla?

]]> By: Robert Devi http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2007/01/05/is-releasing-the-code-always-important/comment-page-1/#comment-754 Robert Devi Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2007/01/05/is-releasing-the-code-always-important/#comment-754 One key benefit that the Ubuntu community would gain would be that other projects that Ubuntu depends on could also use Launchpad. Right now compound mega-projects like GNOME, Debian, KDE, etc don't use Launchpad because they can't. If at least one of these projects used Launchpad, Mark's idea about co-ordinated releases of mega-projects (<br/><a href="http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/74">http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/74</a> ) could be a lot easier to achieve. You would also be able to gain their inputs and patches for ways to improve Launchpad or make it more flexible or maintainable. For instance, does Launchpad have interoperability with all version control systems and exports and imports to and from MSProject/dotProject/...? I'm willing to bet it doesn't because Canonical has bigger fish to fry so it's only focused on the essentials.<p/>You also mentioned "A lot of source code is written by one or two persons for their own private or professional use. Code written like that is often using a lot of shortcuts to achieve its tasks, like hardcoding values....". This is precisely another reason why open sourcing makes sense. Open sourcing forces things to be cleaned up, either by canonical or contributing "patch janitors". Look at Star Office, for instance. It was a mess of a build system that, little extendibility, no integration with GNOME and KDE, and no chance that it's file format could evolve into an ISO standard. Everything changed because it became open source. <p/>Lauchpad has the chance to make a similar splash in the compound mega-project arena like the GNOME/Debian/Apache/Fedora/Gentoo/... communities. Even if nothing is documented more than it currently is and the code is not cleaned up -- if the code is shared with a few key contact people in these communities, and if they can be trained, these contacts can train others who want to configure or contribute to Launchpad.<br/> One key benefit that the Ubuntu community would gain would be that other projects that Ubuntu depends on could also use Launchpad. Right now compound mega-projects like GNOME, Debian, KDE, etc don’t use Launchpad because they can’t. If at least one of these projects used Launchpad, Mark’s idea about co-ordinated releases of mega-projects (
http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/74 ) could be a lot easier to achieve. You would also be able to gain their inputs and patches for ways to improve Launchpad or make it more flexible or maintainable. For instance, does Launchpad have interoperability with all version control systems and exports and imports to and from MSProject/dotProject/…? I’m willing to bet it doesn’t because Canonical has bigger fish to fry so it’s only focused on the essentials.

You also mentioned “A lot of source code is written by one or two persons for their own private or professional use. Code written like that is often using a lot of shortcuts to achieve its tasks, like hardcoding values….”. This is precisely another reason why open sourcing makes sense. Open sourcing forces things to be cleaned up, either by canonical or contributing “patch janitors”. Look at Star Office, for instance. It was a mess of a build system that, little extendibility, no integration with GNOME and KDE, and no chance that it’s file format could evolve into an ISO standard. Everything changed because it became open source.

Lauchpad has the chance to make a similar splash in the compound mega-project arena like the GNOME/Debian/Apache/Fedora/Gentoo/… communities. Even if nothing is documented more than it currently is and the code is not cleaned up — if the code is shared with a few key contact people in these communities, and if they can be trained, these contacts can train others who want to configure or contribute to Launchpad.

]]> By: Robert Scott http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2007/01/05/is-releasing-the-code-always-important/comment-page-1/#comment-755 Robert Scott Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2007/01/05/is-releasing-the-code-always-important/#comment-755 The point of 'releasing the source' in Free software is about proving that nobody has life-or-death control over a project.<p/>I would argue that linuxpower is not a centrally important piece of infrastructure for Free software, however launchpad in theory could be.<p/>Proponents of launchpad being released are so because it would prove that even if something were to happen and Canonical were to take their ball & go home, it wouldn't massively disrupt the game. The point of ‘releasing the source’ in Free software is about proving that nobody has life-or-death control over a project.

I would argue that linuxpower is not a centrally important piece of infrastructure for Free software, however launchpad in theory could be.

Proponents of launchpad being released are so because it would prove that even if something were to happen and Canonical were to take their ball & go home, it wouldn’t massively disrupt the game.

]]> By: Uranus http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2007/01/05/is-releasing-the-code-always-important/comment-page-1/#comment-756 Uranus Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2007/01/05/is-releasing-the-code-always-important/#comment-756 So let me get this straight --<p/>It would be a net-loss if Canonical opened the source code for Launchpad because it would pollute Google's search results?<p/>The 22 people working on Launchpad, by using bad practices such as not preserving their SQL and build scripts, have created a project so poor it would take 2 months for the average free software monkey just to get it running. People like Martin Pool, who cares so much about software project management he wrote his own version control system!<p/>Christian, the best way for a free software company with a free linux distribution to get other free software projects and companies to comit to Launchpad is to publish the source code, using bzr...<p/>It really has got nothing to do with your friends old hairball of a website or an imaginary nvidia driver.<br/> So let me get this straight –

It would be a net-loss if Canonical opened the source code for Launchpad because it would pollute Google’s search results?

The 22 people working on Launchpad, by using bad practices such as not preserving their SQL and build scripts, have created a project so poor it would take 2 months for the average free software monkey just to get it running. People like Martin Pool, who cares so much about software project management he wrote his own version control system!

Christian, the best way for a free software company with a free linux distribution to get other free software projects and companies to comit to Launchpad is to publish the source code, using bzr…

It really has got nothing to do with your friends old hairball of a website or an imaginary nvidia driver.

]]> By: TopDown http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2007/01/05/is-releasing-the-code-always-important/comment-page-1/#comment-757 TopDown Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2007/01/05/is-releasing-the-code-always-important/#comment-757 So Schaller takes yet another step: from "call it Free software* not 'open source', to pro-DRM activist**, to preferring to keep the source closed.<p/>Why don't you drop any pretense that you still give a damn about Freedom... other than the fact that it gives you, and your fellow sell-outs at Fluendo, access to a nice lump of code to rip off when you make a locked-down Trusted Computing DRM Gstreamer to sell to the likes of Nokia/Sony etc.<p/>* Have we all forgotten his firebrand article stating that the term 'open source' is a corruption and dumps the real purpose of Free software -- he obviously hopes we have.<p/>** writing a DRM system by stealing Free software is certainly active So Schaller takes yet another step: from “call it Free software* not ‘open source’, to pro-DRM activist**, to preferring to keep the source closed.

Why don’t you drop any pretense that you still give a damn about Freedom… other than the fact that it gives you, and your fellow sell-outs at Fluendo, access to a nice lump of code to rip off when you make a locked-down Trusted Computing DRM Gstreamer to sell to the likes of Nokia/Sony etc.

* Have we all forgotten his firebrand article stating that the term ‘open source’ is a corruption and dumps the real purpose of Free software — he obviously hopes we have.

** writing a DRM system by stealing Free software is certainly active

]]> By: bystander http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2007/01/05/is-releasing-the-code-always-important/comment-page-1/#comment-758 bystander Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2007/01/05/is-releasing-the-code-always-important/#comment-758 Yay TopDown is back! Champagne comedy! Yay TopDown is back! Champagne comedy!

]]>