He could take the 2.6 source, work on his own machine and/or with collaborators, without any of them telling anyone what they're doing, without any of them releasing any source to the outside world. When Martin's happy he can release 2.8 version.
It would still be open source.
There is no requirement for him to release incremental versions.
If he only made available the source at each major release, I could not go and get a snapshot of the source now and build it, but he would still be working within the open source model.
The other side of the coin: Microsoft could suddenly decide to start doing nightly IE10 preview releases.
They don't need to release the source to make it possible for anyone to go get the latest snapshop and installing it right now.
And the odds of Microsoft ever releasing IE as open source is slim.
So going back to this:
quote: you
You can install it currently if you like because it's open source.
The reason I can install it currently is NOT because it is open source.
It's because the developers have chosen to make it possible for others to get the latest version of the software.
Doing this makes sense for open source but is not required by open source, and nor is being open source a pre-requisite for doing it.
Open Source ultimately means that binary releases must be accompanied by relevant source (and ability to build).
No, it really doesn't. It means what the OSD says it means. Which can't be boiled down to a sentence as it's pared down about as far as it can be in the OSD itself.
Shut up, it's a good enough summary.
You can add "and must not discriminate" to cover points 1,5..10 if you really want.
No one's claimed that 'developing in public' is a prerequisite of being Open Source. It is, however, usually a result of it. The source code being publicly available is a prerequisite. And since it's easier to update a GIT repo than to maintain a public and private branch, in the vastly overwhelming number of cases, Open Source stuff is developed in public.
Since is it Open Source you can download the source code and compile it yourself. In most cases, as in the case of GIMP, you also have access to the development code and can download and compile that. Therefore it is perfectly fucking acceptable to say, particularly in a specific situation where it is the case that, since it is open source, you can get it.
If it were proprietary you would not, in the vastly overwhelming number of cases, have access to the source code and be free to do this. I was making a distinction between common methodologies, not quibbling about licenses like a twat.
I remember reading something about a UI plugin for GIMP that rearranges the menus and buttons so it mimics Photoshop (assuming you're more used to that).
Might help?
Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm a schizophrenic, And so am I
