Do we have a term to distinguish between the two different models of open source? The two models being the "development in public" model (Chrome, Firefox, Rails, etc) and the "release finished code" model (Android, most GPL components of closed source software, etc).
I'm not quite sure. Chromium (the open-source end of Chrome) is very much a cathedral in the sense of product direction, but is developed in the open. I can't come up with something that has the opposite pairing though (it'd be kind of strange).
I'm all in favor of some pithy term for "source released under an open license but not developed in full view of the public."
> The two models being the "development in public" model (Chrome, Firefox, Rails, etc) and the "release finished code" model (Android, most GPL components of closed source software, etc).
There is a spectrum here, not two distinct models of open source.
Projects like Python, Firefox, Linux (kernel), etc. are open source and developed in an open community manner. Decisions are made in the open, long-term plans are well-known, and anyone can participate.
Projects like Chromium are less open, some development is behind closed doors, the project is controlled by a single corporation, the decision making process is not transparent, etc.
Near the edge of the other side are projects like Android, which are basically developed in a closed way, then "dumped over the fence" when finished (which makes them open source at that stage).
I liked the term Shared Source for what Google are doing, though I was informed that Microsoft have already coined that for the stuff where they make the code public for review but not use.
