my thesis is this: just because source is released under some license, that does not make a project a foss project. Or rather a true foss project. The criterion for a true foss project is *not* the license chosen or the fact that the source is available, *but* the development model followed. The closer it is to the bazaar model of development, the better chance it has of surviving. We tend to lose sight of this very often. And why is this important?
If you look at wikipedia, around 850 people have contributed 50% of the english content. The rest is contributed by tens of thousands of people. And a lot of this contribution is one-off contribution. And it is these one-offs or minor contributions that make up half of wikipedia. A developmental environment that efficiently harvests these 'minor' contributions is a healthy 'fossy' environment. Which is why I dont like the environment provided by mono or mysql where a patch will not be accepted unless copyright is assigned.
Yes, in most projects, the core team with commit rights, the main contributors are few. Sometimes just one person. But the community around the project is important. Does sun have the culture to build such a community? Will some outsider be allowed into the inner circle to decide directions. Are decsions made by a meritocracy - or by the company heirarchy. These are the important things.
Agreed.
However i'd like to add that yes its a step in the right direction, and i hope they take more of the same. The ``elitism" of not accepting commits without surrendering copyrite never benefits anyone and is a self defeating policy i hope Sun does not(never does) implement it.
Regards,
- vihan