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

[Stephen Ball]

I'm figuring "trunk" may not necessarily mean "all of main", if there
were any non open source parts presumably we would exclude them from
Subversion. But don't we have that issue no matter what model we choose?

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com
[mailto:opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com] On Behalf Of
Joe Abbate
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 2:36 AM
To: Discussions about the infrastructure needed to support a true open
sourcecommunity
Cc: Open Source Engineering
Subject: Re: [os-engineering] FW: [os-infrastructure] Re:Model
discussionboileddry(er)

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
_______________________________________________
opensource-infrastructure mailing list
opensource-infrastructure at lists.ingres.com
http://lists.ingres.com/mailman/listinfo/opensource-infrastructure