Source availability
Posted Jan 6, 2006 15:37 UTC (Fri) by
corbet (editor, #1)
In reply to:
The Grumpy Editor's Obviously Incorrect 2006 Predictions by Duncan
Parent article:
The Grumpy Editor's Obviously Incorrect 2006 Predictions
"My "safe" prediction is that LWN will /continue/ to advocate FLOSS in name
only, while it remains closed source itself."
I have to say I resent this somewhat. I don't believe I need to defend my free software credentials - beyond the occasional kernel patch, I put an entire book under a free license last year. "In name only" indeed.
The LWN source remains unreleased because I've never found the time to do the security audit, put together the (non-trivial) build instructions, deal with the obvious screwups, create a distribution, put together a mailing list, and get it together to accept bug reports and patches. I want to put the source out there - it's not like we derive any particular advantage from keeping it to ourselves. But when it is put next to keeping the content flowing and figuring out out how to keep LWN alive, spending a week getting a source distribution together just hasn't risen toward the top of the list yet.
(
Log in to post comments)