| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The result isn't quite what he thinks it isThe result isn't quite what he thinks it isPosted Dec 23, 2009 3:18 UTC (Wed) by iabervon (subscriber, #722)In reply to: The result isn't quite what he thinks it is by jmm82 Parent article: Meeks: Some thoughts on copyright assignment
That's all true of the linux kernel project, but I was talking about git. The kernel has quite a few more commits than that, and a much smaller portion touch the Documentation directory (which makes sense, because the documentation that people mostly need is in the separate "man-pages" project, not the kernel's Documentation directory. (Also, the kernel never had a version 1.6.5.)
As far as I know, the people paid to work on git are: Junio, whose employer lets him work a day a week on it; Shawn, who works on git-related projects in his "random useful stuff" time as a Google employee; and presumably the scattering of people who work for git hosting companies and also make some changes to the project. There are probably a number of others who have convinced their employers to use git and therefore can fix bugs and contribute patches if their site runs into the problem.
I think that, to the extent that there's corporate sponsorship of git development, it's either essentially an employee benefit or is corporations acting as technically competent end users and scratching their itches, which is somewhat of a different situation from the relationship between Linux and corporations.
(Log in to post comments)
The result isn't quite what he thinks it is Posted Dec 23, 2009 4:26 UTC (Wed) by jmm82 (subscriber, #59425) [Link]
My apologies I heard git and I immediately thought Linux kernel.
Git is a great example of the type of project which thrives in open
My current favorite Open Source project is the Chromium browser. It is a
|
|
||||||||||||