3 ms·
A very interesting article. As I read it, SaaS providers can integrate GPL code in their service without opening up any of their code, competing with other, sim
by zubspace 7y ago
A very interesting article. As I read it, SaaS providers can integrate GPL code in their service without opening up any of their code, competing with other, similar services. But, isn't that what open source is about? Providing an utility for everyone to use, even in a corporate setting? It's like someone providing a Linux distribution with a license which says, that you're not allowed to make money with it.
I think MongoDB from the article simply provided a SaaS service, which was too simple too copy without any unique features. Ain't this their own fault?
- tsimionescu 7y agoBasically, open source software that has stood the test of time has either been supported by non-commercial entities (e.g. GNU, Firefox) or has been a collaboration of many commercial entities (e.g. Linux, clang, Java). Trying to sell a free product that you are developing does not seem like a workable business model. Open-source products which are developed almost entirely by a company with a questionable business model are unlikely to remain healthy in the long run.
- gpderetta 7y agoAs pointed out elsethread, it seems to be working for Qt.
- _frkl 7y agoI think open source software providing (free) utility for everyone is just a side effect, not the original intend behind it. The original intent, as far as I'm aware, is to let users use and modify the software without restrictions. This obviously leads to the free utility, but if there was a way to achieve the former without the latter, it would be ok. There isn't, and so my argument might sound a bit silly. I do feel it's an important distinction to keep in mind when talking about the politics of it though.