3 ms·

>>The irony is that what makes open source work—and differ from commercial software—is that only a few developers do the major work on any project. Comparing O

by kerng 8y ago

>>The irony is that what makes open source work—and differ from commercial software—is that only a few developers do the major work on any project. Comparing Open Source vs. Commercial software - that's the fail of the article right at the beginning... Apple vs Oranges... What has one to do with the other? Maybe they meant proprietary?

ghaff 8y ago
I'm a bit surprised that Matt used that terminology. It's pretty obvious from the context that he's using commercial as a synonym for proprietary and he certainly knows that's sloppy IMO.
vram22 8y ago
Yes, good point. I've seen a few well-known/famous tech writers make that mistake, either unknowingly or carelessly. Open source or free software (as in speech) vs. closed source (proprietary) and commercial or paid / non-commercial or free software (as in beer) are 2 X 2 (orthogonal) variations, giving 4 possibilities in total. Odd that not many people see this. Maybe sloppy as ghaff said. Correct me if I got it wrong, anyone, that's my understanding of "free as in speech" vs. "free as in beer".
- franciscop 8y ago
  I prefer libre (as in speech) and gratis (as in no cost) but it might be because I'm Spanish. The thing is, they are conceptually orthogonal, but in practice there's strong correlation. It might be for many reasons, but I'd guesstimate 90+% of open source is also non-commercial.
  - heavenlyblue 8y ago
    Are you implying Linux is not commercial? What about ElasticSearch? GitLab? PostgreSQL?
    - franciscop 8y ago
      I don't know about those legal affairs, but they are still only a very, very small part of the open source (in amount of repositories). For instance, the whole npm is open source (ISC) and non-commercial by default, which is currently the largest package manager.
  - vram22 8y ago
    >but in practice there's strong correlation. It might be for many reasons, but I'd guesstimate 90+% of open source is also non-commercial. Your guesstimate may be right or wrong (also see sibling heavenlyblue comment), but my point was more that those writers I mentioned, do not seem to realize that open source or free software can be sold as well. They seem to confuse FOSS as being *synonymous" with "free as in beer". And even if "90+% of open source is also non-commercial", that can be just because many people do not charge for their open source software. There's no rule that they cannot, though.
    - franciscop 8y ago
      I agree, I'd be the first one who would like to get some money for my open source :) I am just saying that if there's such a strong correlation it's normal for some people to mix them up.

by kerng 8y ago

ghaff 8y ago

I'm a bit surprised that Matt used that terminology. It's pretty obvious from the context that he's using commercial as a synonym for proprietary and he certainly knows that's sloppy IMO.

vram22 8y ago

Yes, good point. I've seen a few well-known/famous tech writers make that mistake, either unknowingly or carelessly. Open source or free software (as in speech) vs. closed source (proprietary) and commercial or paid / non-commercial or free software (as in beer) are 2 X 2 (orthogonal) variations, giving 4 possibilities in total. Odd that not many people see this. Maybe sloppy as ghaff said. Correct me if I got it wrong, anyone, that's my understanding of "free as in speech" vs. "free as in beer".

franciscop 8y ago
I prefer libre (as in speech) and gratis (as in no cost) but it might be because I'm Spanish. The thing is, they are conceptually orthogonal, but in practice there's strong correlation. It might be for many reasons, but I'd guesstimate 90+% of open source is also non-commercial.
- heavenlyblue 8y ago
  Are you implying Linux is not commercial? What about ElasticSearch? GitLab? PostgreSQL?
  - franciscop 8y ago
    I don't know about those legal affairs, but they are still only a very, very small part of the open source (in amount of repositories). For instance, the whole npm is open source (ISC) and non-commercial by default, which is currently the largest package manager.
- vram22 8y ago
  >but in practice there's strong correlation. It might be for many reasons, but I'd guesstimate 90+% of open source is also non-commercial. Your guesstimate may be right or wrong (also see sibling heavenlyblue comment), but my point was more that those writers I mentioned, do not seem to realize that open source or free software can be sold as well. They seem to confuse FOSS as being *synonymous" with "free as in beer". And even if "90+% of open source is also non-commercial", that can be just because many people do not charge for their open source software. There's no rule that they cannot, though.
  - franciscop 8y ago
    I agree, I'd be the first one who would like to get some money for my open source :) I am just saying that if there's such a strong correlation it's normal for some people to mix them up.