On Sun, 2008-08-24 at 15:11 -0600, Frank Cox wrote: > On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:19:03 -0700 > Bruce Byfield <bbyfield@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > But that Red Hat acted as it did is not surprising. Just because > > a corporation is open source, it doesn't stop being a corporation. > > But when a corporation claims to be host to a "community", they need to be > called on the carpet by that community when they fail to act appropriately. > Ultimately, of course, there isn't much the so-called community or its > members can do other than either abandon the corporation and go its (their, or > his) own way, but less drastic action like a public ass-kicking can sometimes > have a beneficial effect too. My point is, you can hardly expect a corporation to act as anything except a corporation. Open source corporations exist, but "open source" being used as a qualifier suggests that they are an exception, not the norm, just as "compassionate conservatism" does. Expecting a corporation to act like a community project is simply unrealistic, even when the corporation hosts a community. If, say, Debian acted as Red Hat did, I would be deeply disappointed, because it is completely community-based. The combination of corporation and community embodied in Red Hat/Fedora often works very well on a daily basis, but it's not really surprising that interests should conflict occasionally -- or that, in these circumstances, that actions should be based primarily on corporate needs. As for a "public ass-kicking," if you really want to do something effective (as opposed to indulging in self-righteousness), I suggest you contact Red Hat and Fedora officials directly, not merely vent in forums. -- Bruce Byfield 604-421-7177 Burnaby, BC, Canada web: http://members.axion.net/~bbyfield blog: http://brucebyfield.wordpress.com/ -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
