3 ms·

And both, while noble causes, are unrealistic for most software products.

dTal 9y ago
I would assert the contrary, that the types of software projects that benefit from keeping the source secret are the minority. Most software is written to fill some immediate and boring need, not as a commercial product or business logic secret sauce. There's no real downside to sharing that - most likely no one finds it useful, but on the off chance they do you suddenly have help with it. Admittedly it's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma; no one wants to put in the (certain) effort of packaging up their software for external consumption for the (uncertain) benefit of external help. But the culture is definitely shifting.
- loup-vaillant 9y ago
  Availability bias. Most software people see is mass-distributed software: browser, OS, office suite, games… And it is much easier to extract money mass-distributed software when it is proprietary. In reality, most software that is actually made is custom software. Software that only a handful of people see, because it has only 1 customer, if any. Making that software free makes it easier to extract money from (at least in the short term), because source code availability is often sold for a price (the understanding being, giving the source code also means giving up on exclusivity for later maintenance).
  - Ace17 9y ago
    > In reality, most software that is actually made is custom software. Do you have a source for this claim? (not denying, just curious to look at the numbers!)
    - loup-vaillant 9y ago
      I recall Richard Stallman saying custom software comprises over 90% of the effort. I myself has to physically meet one person who is currently working on massively distributed software. (I have met some who have worked in games in the past.) I don't have anything more precise, but it seems to make sense.
dandelion_lover 9y ago
A detailed study clearly shows that you are wrong: https://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html https://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html
Ace17 9y ago
Like, say, run smartphones or webservers?

dTal 9y ago

I would assert the contrary, that the types of software projects that benefit from keeping the source secret are the minority. Most software is written to fill some immediate and boring need, not as a commercial product or business logic secret sauce. There's no real downside to sharing that - most likely no one finds it useful, but on the off chance they do you suddenly have help with it. Admittedly it's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma; no one wants to put in the (certain) effort of packaging up their software for external consumption for the (uncertain) benefit of external help. But the culture is definitely shifting.

loup-vaillant 9y ago
Availability bias. Most software people see is mass-distributed software: browser, OS, office suite, games… And it is much easier to extract money mass-distributed software when it is proprietary. In reality, most software that is actually made is custom software. Software that only a handful of people see, because it has only 1 customer, if any. Making that software free makes it easier to extract money from (at least in the short term), because source code availability is often sold for a price (the understanding being, giving the source code also means giving up on exclusivity for later maintenance).
- Ace17 9y ago
  > In reality, most software that is actually made is custom software. Do you have a source for this claim? (not denying, just curious to look at the numbers!)
  - loup-vaillant 9y ago
    I recall Richard Stallman saying custom software comprises over 90% of the effort. I myself has to physically meet one person who is currently working on massively distributed software. (I have met some who have worked in games in the past.) I don't have anything more precise, but it seems to make sense.

dandelion_lover 9y ago

A detailed study clearly shows that you are wrong: https://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html https://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html

Ace17 9y ago

Like, say, run smartphones or webservers?