Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:short term thinking is stupid (Score 1) 161

the crucial issue is what's strategically best for the long term interests of free software

It's only crucial to some people (with yourself being obviously one of them). Others don't care nearly so much. If it's a BSD license, an attempt by someone to wall off the code would just result in everyone else forking from the last openly available version. Or it dying if nobody else actually cares, but in that case it doesn't matter. (If users care but no developers do, it's going to be hard to keep the thing alive whatever the license is.) Bear in mind that one of the few things that the BSD license prohibits is relicensing under different terms; for that, you always need the permission of the copyright holders, and there's no provision at all for retrospectively changing the license. But you knew that last part anyway, yes?

BSD-style projects tend to prefer to keep the openness guaranteed through just social measures, instead of trying to enforce it via the license. I guess it might be thought of as a political difference, I suppose.

Comment Re:Bad statistics are bad (Score 1) 254

Well, they DID account for it, but they did it all wrong. They counted WTFs *per repository* ...but that makes the assumption that all repositories are of equal size, which they are not. If C++ repositories have more code on average, then that simple fact could account for the increased WTFs per repository, even if everything else was equal.

The number of WTFs per project isn't a good metric to have a high score in, you know.

Slashdot Top Deals

Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. -- Dave Olson