Surfer! wrote:
even for people with the time and talent to do it, they will then be either
having to get you to incorporate their changes or reimplement them in each
new version that comes along - or stick with what they have regardless of
changes they might or might not want in the base software.

That was true in the dark age of CVS and Subversion. Modern source
management tools like git (which we're using) make following an
upstream code base very easy.

Or again they may not. Plenty of Open Source projects have died. IMHO it
depends really if the user base includes enough people with enough of the
right skills, the inclination and the time to spare, remembering that there
will be a steep learning curve initially.

That is not the point. The point was that you or anybody else is
allowed to pick it up, without having to ask me or John or anybody
else for permission.

This freedom increases the chance that a project will continue to live
on. Whether or not somebody will really do it is of course a
different story.

Many projects have died, but many other projects have been continued
even after the author has disappeared. I have revived a lot of dead
projects in the past. That is only possible because the source code
was open and free.

There are anecdotes for both sides, but the anecdotes about revived
projects are most impressive to me (e.g. being able to play the
original Doom game on my Android phone!).

Meaning of course the LK8000 project. Again, an assumption. If
Paolo loses interest he might pass it on - it wouldn't be a 'first'.

Note the major difference: only if Paolo explicitly decides to pass it
on, the project may continue. He is the only one to decide,
everything in the project depends on one man's random decision.

Max