3 ms·

The fact it's open source means you can't get the rug yanked out from under you by the copyright owner. - They can't suddenly change their mind and make the ne

The fact it's open source means you can't get the rug yanked out from under you by the copyright owner. - They can't suddenly change their mind and make the next version for-pay. - They can't impose pushy conditions, Bitkeeper style. - They can't cease development, while sitting on the copyright. - And if they go bankrupt the code won't be left in legal limbo.

axod 17y ago
The worst thing for me about open source is the mass of abandoned projects no one cares about any more. Don't get me wrong, I like open source and use it a ton, but it's not the only way. As I say, IMHO the main thing is that someone is behind the software that cares.
- lutorm 17y ago
  You really think there are fewer abandoned close-source projects? It's just that you never even knew they existed, unlike the open-source projects. Classic selection bias.
- JulianMorrison 17y ago
  If a project is abandoned and you need it, the ability to work with the code yourself (or hire it done) might mean the difference between a controlled migration and a crash migration that would probably fail. It helps if the vendor cares, but they might not have a choice. There are plenty of ways to lose control of a copyright, from being bought out to bankruptcy.
autarch 17y ago
This is not correct. The copyright owner can, by definition, do whatever they want with the next version, as long as they hold the copyright for the entire code base. Nothing ever prevented MySQL AB (or Sun) from shutting down their public repos and releasing the next version of MySQL as proprietary software. Of course, this would almost certainly lead to an immediate fork, but it has always been possible.
ErrantX 17y ago
> They can't suddenly change their mind and make the next version for-pay. Yes they can. > They can't impose pushy conditions, Bitkeeper style. They can if they relicense (though previous licensed versions would be unaffected). > And if they go bankrupt the code won't be left in legal limbo. could well be. It is still a legal asset so those assigned to selling off assets may well sell off the IP. The copyright holder ALWAYS has absolute authority :) they can do what they want with their code!
- JulianMorrison 17y ago
  My "can't" should be read as "if they try, the bulk of dev effort will simply flow into a fork". They can't revoke the existing licenses, and with open source that's enough.

axod 17y ago

The worst thing for me about open source is the mass of abandoned projects no one cares about any more. Don't get me wrong, I like open source and use it a ton, but it's not the only way. As I say, IMHO the main thing is that someone is behind the software that cares.

lutorm 17y ago
You really think there are fewer abandoned close-source projects? It's just that you never even knew they existed, unlike the open-source projects. Classic selection bias.
JulianMorrison 17y ago
If a project is abandoned and you need it, the ability to work with the code yourself (or hire it done) might mean the difference between a controlled migration and a crash migration that would probably fail. It helps if the vendor cares, but they might not have a choice. There are plenty of ways to lose control of a copyright, from being bought out to bankruptcy.

autarch 17y ago

This is not correct. The copyright owner can, by definition, do whatever they want with the next version, as long as they hold the copyright for the entire code base. Nothing ever prevented MySQL AB (or Sun) from shutting down their public repos and releasing the next version of MySQL as proprietary software. Of course, this would almost certainly lead to an immediate fork, but it has always been possible.

ErrantX 17y ago

> They can't suddenly change their mind and make the next version for-pay. Yes they can. > They can't impose pushy conditions, Bitkeeper style. They can if they relicense (though previous licensed versions would be unaffected). > And if they go bankrupt the code won't be left in legal limbo. could well be. It is still a legal asset so those assigned to selling off assets may well sell off the IP. The copyright holder ALWAYS has absolute authority :) they can do what they want with their code!

JulianMorrison 17y ago
My "can't" should be read as "if they try, the bulk of dev effort will simply flow into a fork". They can't revoke the existing licenses, and with open source that's enough.