- Modifiable AND redistributable. This is where I begin to disagree.
Projects should only be modified and redistributed if:
a) The project is abandoned. (Which happens a lot)
So, you basically want open-source without the most important benefit that open-source brings? I thought your first comment was funny - this one's hilarious!
For a start, how do you define "abandoned" anyway? On who's say so?
Personally, I'm all for the GitHub approach - fork, fork and fork away. I think it's highly important that distributors are allowed to fix bugs and add features, and usually they make their way back upstream.
Taking an example of OpenOffice / LibreOffice. Even before the LibreOffice fork, most Linux distros shipped a modified build of OpenOffice that contained a range of additional features and bug fixes. Should that not have been allowed? Should the fork of LibreOffice not have been allowed, despite the fact that this has resulted in the project developing much more rapidly?
Personally, I'm glad you're not making the rules!