3 ms·
>If you don't plan to maintain your code what you did is not "open sourcing": it is merely a source code "release". "Open source" means "welcome", if you don't
by ripb 12y ago
>If you don't plan to maintain your code what you did is not "open sourcing": it is merely a source code "release". "Open source" means "welcome", if you don't mean it, don't say it.
This is about as incorrect a statement as one could make on the issue.
- johncoltrane 12y agoAnd you did nothing to explain why. Thanks for your input.
- dalke 12y agoOthers have already explained why. The parent poster is expressing annoyance at your presumption that others have any obligation. In any case, your definition is in stark conflict with historical usage. "Open source" was coined in 1998 when the majority of releases were as tarballs on ftp sites, and SourceForge hadn't even started. By your definition then, all of those self-labeled open source projects of 1998 didn't actually exist. It's also ridiculous because it means that when I die, and there's no one else who wants to support it any more, then it somehow loses its "open source" status.
- pnt12 12y agoYou won't find any popular open-source license that mentions active development.