Hacker News Reader

Is it a given that because the software is open-source, the decision-making will be, too? Almost seems there should be a separate set of claims for what the decision-making process will be (like how there are various software licenses).

From the article:

> Eric Raymond, the founder of the Open Source Initiative and one of the authors of the standard-bearing Open Source Definition, said Kyle’s decision violated the fifth clause of the definition, which prohibits discrimination against people or groups.

Okay, so the issue wasn't decision-making, then, and you agree with the parent comment that open source need not have open decision-making?

The Rome license will stay MIT.

Linus is probably a tie-breaker, and thus a unilateral decision maker for Linux when necessary too. What's the problem?