On 20/05/2003 8:58 Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> on 5/20/03 1:22 AM Matthew Langham wrote:
>>However, even in this case, being able to purchase the source may also be an
>>advantage when compared to a commercial product that comes without the
>>source.
>
>
> True, but the term "open source" (even if semantically very weak, I
> admit) is *much* more than having access to the source code and this is
> because having access to the source code *alone* does not allow a
> community to build around a codebase.
Right. We own some commercial licenses of XXE, so we get the source
code. We haven't even bothered to look at it, since we know we'll only
get an updated version upon the next release. In-between releases,
there's no (read-only) CVS with commit messages - just great silence.
Using open source as an excuse to poor API documentation or as a cheapo
escrow method really sucks. I'd rather pay more and get a decent manual,
managed release scheme, and serious support from a proprietary software
vendor, then.
That doesn't mean XXE is a bad product, it offers good value for money,
but the "you get the source if you pay" scheme is just plain marcom-talk.
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
|