3 ms·
This is just a PR piece to justify to their customers why they're staying closed source. The obvious reason is that they'd make a lot less revenue if it were O
by mythz 8y ago
This is just a PR piece to justify to their customers why they're staying closed source.
The obvious reason is that they'd make a lot less revenue if it were OSS/free. They're right that there's several business models around OSS that have negative side-effects and that just charging for software is the more transparent quid pro quo transaction.
It's ok to sell software, but they should just be transparent about it.
- hatmatrix 8y agoI have no skin in the game, but I'll drop in my 2 cents. This may be a PR piece or someone who's had this conversation a countless number of times and wanted to lay it out in a single place. The points seem mostly fair, though I would argue what he argues is "not possible" with an free or open source model is that it's "more difficult" to coordinate. As an example, R is my go-to language, but the function arguments and style can be vastly different from function to function or package to package. Here I have found MATLAB to be more consistent in this regard. Python's kind of a mix - the core of Python is like one language and Numpy, Pandas another, but it does reflect the semi-independent management of these projects.