rvale writes: "Gentoo's developer manual was recently taken offline over a license complaint. Although it is now back up, some of the original authors are not happy with the way the complaint has been resolved. The issue at hand is whether it is appropriate for the authors' names to have been removed from the cover page. Is this a reasonable thing to do, or is it another example of heavy handedness from the distribution that requires that copyright be assigned to them for all package submissions and that tried to make every contributor sign away their rights through a lengthy legal document?"
alex writes: Certain open source projects are infamous for their refusal to commit to calling a release 1.0. This is in contrast with commercial developers, who would never consider releasing anything starting with a 0 to the public. This article provides a rough estimate of just what proportion of open source projects have yet to consider one of their releases worthy of being version 1: "A third of the projects in question haven't made it to 1.0. Two thirds haven't made it to 2.0. Clearly, open source has a long way to go before it can compete with Microsoft, who made it as far as version 2000 before they ran out of numbers and switched to names." Although humorous, it does raise a serious point: would open source projects be able to improve their image by using larger version numbers?
rvale writes: Gentoo has announced a new project called Seeds. Aiming to provide out of the box images for various common tasks, it could be the answer to the common complaint that installing and customising Gentoo takes too long. However, with other developers and Council members complaining that the project was improperly set up and those backing the project refusing to back off, lending weight to recent claims that Gentoo is suffering from management problems, will what could be a massive step forward degenerate into a repeat of the Sunrise disaster?