5 ms·

I would love to see a similar proposition with proprietary products run by companies. If you run an infrastructure style product, there should be a living will

I would love to see a similar proposition with proprietary products run by companies. If you run an infrastructure style product, there should be a living will involve where the product will become open source upon the bankruptcy or shutdown style sale of the company. For example, FoundationDB was bought by apple and the product was shuttered. Under a living will, the product would become open source, as it is no longer developed by the company. I realise this may lead to a lower selling price, all things being equal, however people/companies are also more likely to trust you when you are small, as they have a greater chance of survival should you fail. My personal feeling is that most of these products should be open source from the get go, and it will probably have to be this way going forward, however this is a reasonable middle ground.

s73v3r 11y ago
"For example, FoundationDB was bought by apple and the product was shuttered. Under a living will, the product would become open source, as it is no longer developed by the company." Would it? I assume the tech is still being developed. It's just that the continuing development is not offered as a product. Further, once someone buys the company, don't they gain control over that company's assets? So if they no longer want to offer a product for sale, why should they?
- lbradstreet 11y ago
  In theory there should be a trade off when offering such a solution. Companies are more likely to trust you, and use your product if they can be sure there is a fallback plan (open source) upon your product being shuttered. Yes, you may lose some potential fallback plans for your company if it is being bought for its technology, but hopefully the number of additional adopters who would trust you early on in your company's life would compensate for this. I'm not saying there is a moral obligation to do so, merely that it might be a good decision for both sides. See, for example, how open source is increasingly becoming a requirement for infrastructure products that companies come to depend on. This may be a good middle ground. Personally think open sourcing from the start is a better choice.

s73v3r 11y ago

"For example, FoundationDB was bought by apple and the product was shuttered. Under a living will, the product would become open source, as it is no longer developed by the company." Would it? I assume the tech is still being developed. It's just that the continuing development is not offered as a product. Further, once someone buys the company, don't they gain control over that company's assets? So if they no longer want to offer a product for sale, why should they?

lbradstreet 11y ago
In theory there should be a trade off when offering such a solution. Companies are more likely to trust you, and use your product if they can be sure there is a fallback plan (open source) upon your product being shuttered. Yes, you may lose some potential fallback plans for your company if it is being bought for its technology, but hopefully the number of additional adopters who would trust you early on in your company's life would compensate for this. I'm not saying there is a moral obligation to do so, merely that it might be a good decision for both sides. See, for example, how open source is increasingly becoming a requirement for infrastructure products that companies come to depend on. This may be a good middle ground. Personally think open sourcing from the start is a better choice.