[os-engineering] FW: [os-infrastructure] Re:Model discussionboiled dry(er)

[Joe Abbate]

Hi Steve,

Stephen Ball wrote:
> Before anyone jumps on this, I am not advocating that this proposal is
> any better or worse than the other proposals, but it is another way of
> serving the community/fedora model, and it does have a different looking
> diagram to the other 2 proposals, so we should consider it. One of the
> key differences it brings is that it allows the "fedora" model whilst
> providing the community browse access to the "enterprise" version, which
> resides on "trunk", although they may not be able to commit to that
> branch. So the question is, if we decide on the Fedora model, do we want
> the community to be able to browse the enterprise source using a code
> management system? Some might argue that the GNU license compels us to
> do this (I'm not one of those people).
>   

I'm no intellectual property expert, but couldn't browse access on a 
public site be construed as open sourcing that code? What if the 
no-commit-access portion includes modifications like B1 or similar code.

Joe