On 06/10/18, Nick Andre pondered and said...
 
 NA> BP> opensource is nice :)
 NA> 
 NA> A wise man told me "I'm afraid now this is a knee-jerk response in a way
 NA> you may not like to hear".

[snip]

 NA> For years as a Fido developer I have had the pleasure of receiving
 NA> Echomail, Netmail and Internet email about why D'Bridge is not open
 NA> source. And when I state my logical reasons why, most of the time I am
 NA> looked upon as an idiot because I don't publish source code like Mystic,
 NA> HPT and Synchronet.

Yep just agreeing with Al, Mystic has been closed for a while again..

Nick, I'm not too bothered either way on the whole Windows vs Linux thing and
relative merits of Open vs Closed.... but reading your post (which was fun to
read BTW :)) made me wonder about your thoughts on the issue of software
longevity / support...

By this I mean if something is closed source and for whatever reason the
author leaves the scene never to return , do you think that the closed source
model is good or bad when I'm guessing the evolution of the software ceases
at the point because no one else is able to pick up the code and develop it
further?

Actually Renegade was an interesting one in that regards ... (and no I'm that
ofait with all the ins and outs of the history) but I recall how things
stopped for a time when Cott stopped coding it, then as you know things
morphed a fair bit over time as closed source code was handed over to people
(I'm sure in good faith at the time) for the software to be changed etc.
further, and not always for the better perhaps as you may well agree :)

Anyways interested in your thoughts about the pros for closed source and the
potential pitfalls (if that's the right way to frame it?) of that model and
what you think coders engaged in a closed source model may wish to consider
if/when they opt to leave a project for good / a long long time.. ?

Best, Paul

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A39 2018/04/21 (Windows/32)