3 ms·
I think OPs point is that commercial vendors will now stop providing the source code, which deprecates the overall quality (I don't like working with code I don
by Matt3o12_ 10y ago
I think OPs point is that commercial vendors will now stop providing the source code, which deprecates the overall quality (I don't like working with code I don't have the source code to. Once you find a bug, this all blows up on you).
It think it is a big win that proprietary software needs to ship source code with them in order to sell the library. Just because there is source code doesn't mean, it is open source or free software. It can still have the same licenses (not share the source/bin, etc) but source code that is visible (even proprietary) is better then a binary.
After all, not all libraries are OS and those that aren't would suffer from that change (although marketing guys would probably argue differently).
- dchest 10y agoExactly, which is why it's great for community! This means that open source packages will be more valuable than commercial binary blobs due to the ability to audit source code.
- Matt3o12_ 10y agoTheoretically, yes, but commercial libraries will always be there – no matter what language they're written in. So we can either make the best out of our situation and have commercial libraries with source code access or have it like every other language out there.