4 ms·
If I implied as much, could you mention where in the post? The table under scope specifically addresses differences in licensing expectations, rather than rela
by kemitchell 7y ago
If I implied as much, could you mention where in the post?
The table under scope specifically addresses differences in licensing expectations, rather than related services like maintenance, support, training, and integration. The string of questions under Scope mention the call for a broader, vendor relationship behind the code. I mention that Tidelift layers on maintenance assurances, aside from the license.
This post is inside baseball, and I’m surprised to see it on the front page of HN. But I’d like to make it clearer if I can.
- jacques_chester 7y agoThe string of questions under Scope are themselves scoped to a particular subset of what enterprises require from vendors. Compliance and legal assurance are part of the value. But they are not the whole of what enterprise vendors do. Big companies have needs that no casual OSS contributor would need to scratch.
- Terretta 7y agoCommenting unofficially as an open source fan inside a globally giant enterprise, your post (a) made sense, (b) was circulated to folks much less familiar with these concerns. The table was particularly helpful, and at least this global enterprise is well aware of all the other nonsense it didn’t cover. I would have found adding those to the table to lessen your focused point about license openness and pitfalls vs. need of the ecosystem to be sustainable.
- kemitchell 7y agoI suppose I might have listed "form a company to commercialize" as one of the approaches, and tagged it as the one with greatest flexibility to add more offerings on top of license rights. I think License Zero, Tidelift, and other "sustainability as a service" offerings exist largely because the overhead of company-based commercialization is so high, and it doesn't scale well down to very small open source projects.