At 4/15/01 10:38 PM, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>The short and simple of it is that what has currently been developed is in
>/contrib ... we will not release anything into the Open Source until we
>*at least* have a running release and package, which is when we put
>erserver into /contrib ...
OK, but I guess I'm being dense, because I still don't get it. If the
current version of replication is in /contrib, and you're saying it's not
yet ready for beta, then what is the stuff at http://www.erserver.com/
that says it's in beta? Are we talking about two totally different
things? If so, are there any notable differences between them?
>Our policy on Open Source vs Closed Source is it depends on who funded it
>... if we covered the costs internally, it goes Open Source ... if a
>client paid us to do it for them, its Closed Source, as paying us to do
>something for them is meant to give them a competitive advantage, and Open
>Sourcing it would detract from that ...
Sure, of course. I'm just having difficulty figuring out which category
eRServer is in.
I've read the press release, and it implies eRServer is a combination of
Open and Closed source. If that's the case, it would helpful to know
what's Open Source and what's not (for example, is the current state of
the eRServer code the full extent of the intended Open Source
development, with future improvements being Closed Source for the
forseeable future?).
--
Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies