5 ms·

Wouldn't the software continue to work on PCs, or did Apple have a way to remotely kill every copy? If not, why was it any more of an issue than if it were ope

Wouldn't the software continue to work on PCs, or did Apple have a way to remotely kill every copy? If not, why was it any more of an issue than if it were open source and the developer abandoned it? In other words, what happened to make the software that you were running for 10 years suddenly cease to be useful?

edanm 17y ago
Some people sleep better knowing the "abandoned" software can always be taken up by other developers, because it's open source. Others sleep better knowing there's a company with a financial incentive to keep the product alive. Honestly, either way, I don't see where morality enters the equation. It's not wrong to release software that's closed-source, it's your choice as a developer. It's not wrong to give up some of your freedom, it's your choice as a consumer.
tome 17y ago
For example, do you think the users might have considered it a bit of a risk continuing to use software they knew there would be no bug fixes for?
jdietrich 17y ago
You're fine until you upgrade your hardware, or install a new plugin, or need to import a new file type. You end up in the same predicament as people still using IE6 - the software is as good or bad as it was when it was still being supported, but the rest of the world has moved on around you. Beyond that, in most industries there is constant competitive pressure to be using the latest, most powerful tools. If you don't have an upgrade path, your setup falls further and further behind your competitors. The recent fashion for overt Autotune is a good example - in a relatively short space of time it has gone from being a relatively unusual effect to being de rigeur in some genres. If you can't keep up with those trends, you're going to lose work.
- elblanco 17y ago
  The outstanding question though is that in this type of case, high-end domain specific software, the pure open source model tends not to produce the ultra-high end software. The reason, though it seems to mystify many open source advocates, is that it takes lots of money to make a unique or novel thing on time spans of less than a decade...and the only way to recoup those costs is by selling that thing at some price and keeping the IP closed. Multi-thousand dollar plugins are one example. In other words, going open source in this type of sense means that you won't have the latest and greatest anyway. So your particular case example doesn't change things.
  - stcredzero 17y ago
    Doesn't explain why the software couldn't revert to Open Source once that company goes defunct. If I were running a large company, I would think about asking for such terms.
    - stretchwithme 17y ago
      It happens all the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code_escrow
    - elblanco 17y ago
      It's actually really nice when it happens. There are cases though where the source code does not actually compile into the complete product, typically where lots of third party components are licensed in.

edanm 17y ago

Some people sleep better knowing the "abandoned" software can always be taken up by other developers, because it's open source. Others sleep better knowing there's a company with a financial incentive to keep the product alive. Honestly, either way, I don't see where morality enters the equation. It's not wrong to release software that's closed-source, it's your choice as a developer. It's not wrong to give up some of your freedom, it's your choice as a consumer.

tome 17y ago

For example, do you think the users might have considered it a bit of a risk continuing to use software they knew there would be no bug fixes for?

jdietrich 17y ago

You're fine until you upgrade your hardware, or install a new plugin, or need to import a new file type. You end up in the same predicament as people still using IE6 - the software is as good or bad as it was when it was still being supported, but the rest of the world has moved on around you. Beyond that, in most industries there is constant competitive pressure to be using the latest, most powerful tools. If you don't have an upgrade path, your setup falls further and further behind your competitors. The recent fashion for overt Autotune is a good example - in a relatively short space of time it has gone from being a relatively unusual effect to being de rigeur in some genres. If you can't keep up with those trends, you're going to lose work.

elblanco 17y ago
The outstanding question though is that in this type of case, high-end domain specific software, the pure open source model tends not to produce the ultra-high end software. The reason, though it seems to mystify many open source advocates, is that it takes lots of money to make a unique or novel thing on time spans of less than a decade...and the only way to recoup those costs is by selling that thing at some price and keeping the IP closed. Multi-thousand dollar plugins are one example. In other words, going open source in this type of sense means that you won't have the latest and greatest anyway. So your particular case example doesn't change things.
- stcredzero 17y ago
  Doesn't explain why the software couldn't revert to Open Source once that company goes defunct. If I were running a large company, I would think about asking for such terms.
  - stretchwithme 17y ago
    It happens all the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code_escrow
  - elblanco 17y ago
    It's actually really nice when it happens. There are cases though where the source code does not actually compile into the complete product, typically where lots of third party components are licensed in.