quote:
His wording was more specifically along the lines of "I don't care if software is good. It has to be free, but it doesn't have to be good.
Yes, and I'm sure it was in response to some question where a context was provided for what constitutes good. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence will realise that he, obviously, doesn't want shit software. He just has different criteria for what constitutes 'good'.
quote:
Freedom should come first, but unless it's also good then it's not going to help promote the cause.
And you're still not getting it. He doesn't separate 'Free' and 'good'. Free is a prerequisite of it being good. Then as it gets more
functional, it gets better. But if it's not Free then he's not interested at all. And that's fine, that's his view. He's not wrong, you just disagree about what constitutes 'good'.
quote:
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.
quote:
There is no requirement of any Open Source license that development take place in public nor that (binary or code) preview releases are made.
The first part is a meaningless claim, once something is distributed you have to make the source accessible which all but necessitates 'development in public'. The second part is an irrelevance. What the fuck does a 'preview release' have to do with anything. What I said was that since GIMP is open source you can
download the source and compile it yourself if you so wish.
EDITED: 3 Dec 2011 21:44 by X3N0PH0N