4 ms·

It will never happen. Somebody needs to pay those engineers who build SQL Server. Maybe when relational databases are a commodity and everything is NoSQL?

darkr 11y ago
Plenty of successful businesses are built around providing support, services or premium features for an otherwise open-source project.
- hyperliner 11y ago
  Yeah, but the economics of those businesses do not scale as well as software.
- hendzen 11y ago
  Name one (other than RedHat) that is consistently profitable.
  - pritambaral 11y ago
    2ndQuadrant
  - niutech 11y ago
    Novell (now Micro Focus)
sigjuice 11y ago
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllow...
- superuser2 11y ago
  Yes. Does it create a situation where any appreciable number of people will pay money for copies of the program? No. See CentOS. (Though they may pay money for related consulting or hosting services).
  - darkr 11y ago
    > No. See CentOS. I'd argue otherwise[1]. Also, as of ~2 years ago, CentOS is just another Red Hat supported project. [1]: https://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=RHT https://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=RHT
    - superuser2 11y ago
      RedHat doesn't make that money on software, but on support and consulting services. Nothing wrong with that. But it is still not true that you can reasonably well open source software. People who just want the software will get it for free.
daigoba66 11y ago
> It will never happen. Some people probably said that about the .NET framework. Now almost all of it (the new stuff anyway, and minus Visual Studio) is fully open source.
- javajosh 11y ago
  That happened when they realized that dev mind share is (far) more valuable than tooling revenues.
  - hyperliner 11y ago
    Not just any Dev mindshare, but that mindshare that translates into hard dollars (monetized through some other means like Azure).
- pksadiq 11y ago
  Making something open source != making something GPL. .Net is licensed under MIT/X11 I think. If someone is licensing something under GNU GPL, they are also giving away their intellectual property/patent rights (or what ever they call that) to any software developed in GPL, which Microsoft is never ever going to do. MIT/X11 license is not giving other developers and users such a patent protection from its original developers.
- hyperliner 11y ago
  The framework was not an independently monetized piece of work for Microsoft. One the .Net / J2EE battles were settled, there was no need to keep it closed source.
- TheRealDunkirk 11y ago
  Not this again. .NET is still primarily useful for developing GUI applications. None of that is available on Linux; only the language and the web stack. And, while most devs think C# is a perfectly usable language, quite frankly, IMHO, ASP.NET and EF aren't even in the running compared to other toolchains for web development on Linux. If MS would make the GUI libraries available, then and only then would it be a game changer.
giancarlostoro 11y ago
They still do consultancy as well as certify developers and IT professionals, don't forget the books they publish, and other things. I think Microsoft is aiming more towards developers than anything, if you can get developers on Azure even better, it wont matter if they use all available FOSS from you, you're making good income as a result!

darkr 11y ago

Plenty of successful businesses are built around providing support, services or premium features for an otherwise open-source project.

hyperliner 11y ago
Yeah, but the economics of those businesses do not scale as well as software.
hendzen 11y ago
Name one (other than RedHat) that is consistently profitable.
- pritambaral 11y ago
  2ndQuadrant
- niutech 11y ago
  Novell (now Micro Focus)

sigjuice 11y ago

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllow...

superuser2 11y ago
Yes. Does it create a situation where any appreciable number of people will pay money for copies of the program? No. See CentOS. (Though they may pay money for related consulting or hosting services).
- darkr 11y ago
  > No. See CentOS. I'd argue otherwise[1]. Also, as of ~2 years ago, CentOS is just another Red Hat supported project. [1]: https://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=RHT https://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=RHT
  - superuser2 11y ago
    RedHat doesn't make that money on software, but on support and consulting services. Nothing wrong with that. But it is still not true that you can reasonably well open source software. People who just want the software will get it for free.

daigoba66 11y ago

> It will never happen. Some people probably said that about the .NET framework. Now almost all of it (the new stuff anyway, and minus Visual Studio) is fully open source.

javajosh 11y ago
That happened when they realized that dev mind share is (far) more valuable than tooling revenues.
- hyperliner 11y ago
  Not just any Dev mindshare, but that mindshare that translates into hard dollars (monetized through some other means like Azure).
pksadiq 11y ago
Making something open source != making something GPL. .Net is licensed under MIT/X11 I think. If someone is licensing something under GNU GPL, they are also giving away their intellectual property/patent rights (or what ever they call that) to any software developed in GPL, which Microsoft is never ever going to do. MIT/X11 license is not giving other developers and users such a patent protection from its original developers.
hyperliner 11y ago
The framework was not an independently monetized piece of work for Microsoft. One the .Net / J2EE battles were settled, there was no need to keep it closed source.
TheRealDunkirk 11y ago
Not this again. .NET is still primarily useful for developing GUI applications. None of that is available on Linux; only the language and the web stack. And, while most devs think C# is a perfectly usable language, quite frankly, IMHO, ASP.NET and EF aren't even in the running compared to other toolchains for web development on Linux. If MS would make the GUI libraries available, then and only then would it be a game changer.

giancarlostoro 11y ago

They still do consultancy as well as certify developers and IT professionals, don't forget the books they publish, and other things. I think Microsoft is aiming more towards developers than anything, if you can get developers on Azure even better, it wont matter if they use all available FOSS from you, you're making good income as a result!