I can read the proposal. It clearly says 'open source'.
The part about the local version was wrong, I apologize. My main point is still valid.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I can read the proposal. It clearly says 'open source'.
The part about the local version was wrong, I apologize. My main point is still valid.
It is absolutely debatable whether planning to open source in several months with no true commitment or recourse is good enough. By which I mean people can legitimately disagree. I prefer to see funding going to projects that are currently open source and have transparent and open development fully visible in github (or similar). That is just my opinion and voting preference of course. Others see it differently.
They may disagree, but the original comment implies the project was closed source:
That makes no sense when the proposal includes open sourcing it.
Same as with @transisto's and @frederikaa's comments.
It is closed source NOW, and I do not support funding it NOW. If and when it may become open source, I will consider supporting funding it.
I don't support funding based on distant future promises with no clear milestones, visible process, and no recourse if the promises aren't satisified. That applies equally to promises of open sourcing as anything else.
That's great. I did not reply to YOU, though.
They did not even read the proposal, is what I am saying,
You did reply to me. In any case, we may be misunderstanding each other. I'm happy to move on.
How about a great track record instead of milestones ?
What difference does it make if it is open source now or in 3 months ?
I am happy to move on.