So just push everything to open source then, not only releases but branches? Nobody forces you to have fast release schedule, but you either open source or you are not. Releasing sources 2 times a year is not an open source.
Actually, it is open source. There is nothing wrong with developing in private and pushing public when its done. Every developer works that way to some degree or another. And there are good reasons not to push every commit public.
Yeah, every dev does that to a degree of one ticket, which shouldn’t take more that 2 days on average. So no, hiding code for half a year isn’t ok. I don’t know why you try to normalize it.
I think that’s true, but it’s a different moral imperative than either open source (understood as just being able to get the code for the software you have) or Free Software (which was conceived when software came on tapes in the mail and completely fails to address project governance in the era of forges).
So just push everything to open source then, not only releases but branches? Nobody forces you to have fast release schedule, but you either open source or you are not. Releasing sources 2 times a year is not an open source.
Actually, it is open source. There is nothing wrong with developing in private and pushing public when its done. Every developer works that way to some degree or another. And there are good reasons not to push every commit public.
Yeah, every dev does that to a degree of one ticket, which shouldn’t take more that 2 days on average. So no, hiding code for half a year isn’t ok. I don’t know why you try to normalize it.
No there aren’t. All users (interested) need to know what their software is doing and be able to contribute to it.
I think that’s true, but it’s a different moral imperative than either open source (understood as just being able to get the code for the software you have) or Free Software (which was conceived when software came on tapes in the mail and completely fails to address project governance in the era of forges).