4 ms·

I've seen saying for years and years that we're going to see a resurgence of proprietary software. Free software was one of those ideas that spread so successfu

I've seen saying for years and years that we're going to see a resurgence of proprietary software. Free software was one of those ideas that spread so successfully that people temporarily forgot that life could be otherwise, which means they stopped caring about the idea, which in turn led to a complacency that, at first, shifted software licensing to a BSD-style permissive model, and now, is starting to allow 1990s cancer like this commonscause.com license restriction to come back. There's nothing new in the software ecosystem driving this. Well, this commonsclause.com crap is such a move toward proprietary software. We're here. > The Commons Clause is a first step at starting an important discussion

maxerickson 8y ago
The baseline is pretty high to call anything a resurgence. I guess by revenue dollar most software is already proprietary, it's just billed as a service or whatnot. Considering all the code inside of companies, it's probably the case that most lines of code are also proprietary.
- slavik81 8y ago
  Revenue is probably not a good measure, as an open source solution tends to reduce market size as measured by dollars spent. From Bob Young, founder of Red Hat: > The reality is most of our users don’t pay us squat [...] Our business model [showed] that if we had millions of users, we only needed one-tenth of our users to actually find something of value to pay Red Hat for. > If Microsoft’s earning $40 billion worth of operating system sales, and if we [reduce that to] a $4 billion-a-year market, because nine out of ten of the people that use our operating system aren’t going to pay us, we’re quite happy with a share of a $4 billion-a-year market. https://growthhackers.com/growth-studies/red-hat-how-they-developed-a-big-idea-that-shook-up-a-huge-market https://growthhackers.com/growth-studies/red-hat-how-they-de...
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    I think that makes it important to consider revenue. Say each company spends ¼ of revenues paying developers. Microsoft would be paying ~10x the developers to write software and probably be writing more software.
scrollaway 8y ago
Have you read the Commons Clause license? Do you understand it well enough to back up those absurd claims you're making? People see "oh it's not OSI-approved" and just de-facto assume it's the end of the world. Redis is an amazing piece of open source, BSD software and you're taking a huge dump on it and its author for not complying to your wishes. Friend, have you done for open source even 1/10th of what Antirez and the Redis project have? Honestly, this whole thread. I remember instances of people finding out about major figures in open source burning out, turning to drugs or even killing themselves and being all like "oh, this was so preventable". Prevent now. Stop behaving like this towards people.
- quotemstr 8y ago
  Your comment is not productive. It attempts to substitute emotion, misplaced empathy, and ultimately social shaming in place of a discussion of the linguistic and economic issues that this Redis affair is surfacing. Your post amounts to a ban on criticism, on made on the grounds that it might make people feel bad. It's an attempt to end discussion, not further it. Much like proprietary software licensing, this approach has been tried many times before and has seen limited success.
  - scrollaway 8y ago
    Nonsense. I don't have a problem with people criticizing Commons Clause, I have a problem with people acting like Antirez & redis labs are the worst people on earth for choosing it, when they've in fact contributed so much to open source. You know what's not productive? Lacking empathy. Lacking tact. Lacking decency. You wanna have a discussion on Commons Clause, there's a perfectly respectable thread two posts over on Drew DeVault's blog post.
    - quotemstr 8y ago
      > I don't have a problem with people criticizing Commons Clause Okay, but... > You wanna have a discussion on Commons Clause, there's a perfectly respectable thread two posts over ... you do, evidently, have a problem with discussing the Commons Cause: you want to sequester this discussion into its own thread despite the Commons Clause very much on-topic here. You are attempting to smear critics of Redis's use of the Commons Clause by claiming that criticism amounts to treating CC's proponents like "the worst people on earth". This tactic does not lead to the kind of discussion that enlightens or convinces. It lacks tact and has no place here.

maxerickson 8y ago

The baseline is pretty high to call anything a resurgence. I guess by revenue dollar most software is already proprietary, it's just billed as a service or whatnot. Considering all the code inside of companies, it's probably the case that most lines of code are also proprietary.

slavik81 8y ago
Revenue is probably not a good measure, as an open source solution tends to reduce market size as measured by dollars spent. From Bob Young, founder of Red Hat: > The reality is most of our users don’t pay us squat [...] Our business model [showed] that if we had millions of users, we only needed one-tenth of our users to actually find something of value to pay Red Hat for. > If Microsoft’s earning $40 billion worth of operating system sales, and if we [reduce that to] a $4 billion-a-year market, because nine out of ten of the people that use our operating system aren’t going to pay us, we’re quite happy with a share of a $4 billion-a-year market. https://growthhackers.com/growth-studies/red-hat-how-they-developed-a-big-idea-that-shook-up-a-huge-market https://growthhackers.com/growth-studies/red-hat-how-they-de...
- maxerickson 8y ago
  I think that makes it important to consider revenue. Say each company spends ¼ of revenues paying developers. Microsoft would be paying ~10x the developers to write software and probably be writing more software.

scrollaway 8y ago

Have you read the Commons Clause license? Do you understand it well enough to back up those absurd claims you're making? People see "oh it's not OSI-approved" and just de-facto assume it's the end of the world. Redis is an amazing piece of open source, BSD software and you're taking a huge dump on it and its author for not complying to your wishes. Friend, have you done for open source even 1/10th of what Antirez and the Redis project have? Honestly, this whole thread. I remember instances of people finding out about major figures in open source burning out, turning to drugs or even killing themselves and being all like "oh, this was so preventable". Prevent now. Stop behaving like this towards people.

quotemstr 8y ago
Your comment is not productive. It attempts to substitute emotion, misplaced empathy, and ultimately social shaming in place of a discussion of the linguistic and economic issues that this Redis affair is surfacing. Your post amounts to a ban on criticism, on made on the grounds that it might make people feel bad. It's an attempt to end discussion, not further it. Much like proprietary software licensing, this approach has been tried many times before and has seen limited success.
- scrollaway 8y ago
  Nonsense. I don't have a problem with people criticizing Commons Clause, I have a problem with people acting like Antirez & redis labs are the worst people on earth for choosing it, when they've in fact contributed so much to open source. You know what's not productive? Lacking empathy. Lacking tact. Lacking decency. You wanna have a discussion on Commons Clause, there's a perfectly respectable thread two posts over on Drew DeVault's blog post.
  - quotemstr 8y ago
    > I don't have a problem with people criticizing Commons Clause Okay, but... > You wanna have a discussion on Commons Clause, there's a perfectly respectable thread two posts over ... you do, evidently, have a problem with discussing the Commons Cause: you want to sequester this discussion into its own thread despite the Commons Clause very much on-topic here. You are attempting to smear critics of Redis's use of the Commons Clause by claiming that criticism amounts to treating CC's proponents like "the worst people on earth". This tactic does not lead to the kind of discussion that enlightens or convinces. It lacks tact and has no place here.