3 ms·

If I understand the thesis of the article correctly, the idea is that most developers actually care about open source production, meanwhile open source licenses

If I understand the thesis of the article correctly, the idea is that most developers actually care about open source production, meanwhile open source licenses are only capable of restricting distribution? The example given is GitHub versus open source bug trackers. You didn't come out and say this directly Steve, but isn't this basically flirting with the conclusion that developers tend to prefer proprietary platforms? You mentioned that the numbers speak for themselves, and you personally shifted your ideology from the Free Software Movement. Couple this with the rise of SaaS as a business model, and it seems like a lot of the tension here is related to the way that proprietary platforms focus on production, while licenses themselves focus on distribution.

steveklabnik 8y ago
Roughly, yes. Or, with slightly more nuance, open source has been synonymous with "uses an open source licence", but semantically, developers are understanding open source to be a more holistic idea of openness, rather than purely a software license strategy. And the licence can't possible ensure that the rest of those ideas are followed.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  FYI I edited my comment since you replied, I wasn't done with my train of thought yet :) Seems like I'm on the same page with you then. I don't really see a way to codify all of the peripheral open source associations in a legal document. A lot of it is very...ad hoc.
  - steveklabnik 8y ago
    It's cool! Let me respond here, rather than edit my response :) > but isn't this basically flirting with the conclusion that developers tend to prefer proprietary platforms? I don't think they prefer proprietary platforms, I think they prefer good platforms, and will put that desire over "is it open source or not." But, I think you also can't split that by "platform", that is, in some areas, the open source aspect wins out. There are also hybrid platforms, with some open-ness, some close-ness. I think ultimately my point is "most developers are not free software absolutists."

steveklabnik 8y ago

Roughly, yes. Or, with slightly more nuance, open source has been synonymous with "uses an open source licence", but semantically, developers are understanding open source to be a more holistic idea of openness, rather than purely a software license strategy. And the licence can't possible ensure that the rest of those ideas are followed.

throwawaymath 8y ago
FYI I edited my comment since you replied, I wasn't done with my train of thought yet :) Seems like I'm on the same page with you then. I don't really see a way to codify all of the peripheral open source associations in a legal document. A lot of it is very...ad hoc.
- steveklabnik 8y ago
  It's cool! Let me respond here, rather than edit my response :) > but isn't this basically flirting with the conclusion that developers tend to prefer proprietary platforms? I don't think they prefer proprietary platforms, I think they prefer good platforms, and will put that desire over "is it open source or not." But, I think you also can't split that by "platform", that is, in some areas, the open source aspect wins out. There are also hybrid platforms, with some open-ness, some close-ness. I think ultimately my point is "most developers are not free software absolutists."