3 ms·

I don't understand why this move should piss off anybody in the OSS community. Oracle is a private company and as such has only obligations to its shareholders.

by vtail 16y ago

I don't understand why this move should piss off anybody in the OSS community. Oracle is a private company and as such has only obligations to its shareholders. They may or may not support and/or promote OSS projects as they see fit, same as every one of us. It's their free choice.

ebtalley 16y ago
Look at what kind of headway corporations like google have made in the mind of consumers when they go above and beyond the shareholder mantra. Oracle might make short term gains on their terms but they have started to poison a whole new generation of developers.
- vtail 16y ago
  Oracle is not a person to make such a decision; it is its shareholders who should decide how they want to spend their money. I wouldn't want to have a tax (as an Oracle investor or a private citizen) to support OSS. I may want to contribute my money and/or code as a donation, but that will be my own choice.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    I don't want to support Oracle's sailboat racing. So, I don't own any Oracle shares. Pretty simple, isn't it?
    - oziumjinx 16y ago
      Larry Ellison pays for that out of pocket.
- fleitz 16y ago
  Webpages are not a complement to Oracle's business model, thus what makes sense for Oracle and Google to open source are vastly different. If you look at what Google open sources, it's all compliments to their business model. Google doesn't open source technology that it makes money from. As to going above and beyond in regards to open source, you'd have to look at where NetBeans came from Sun. Look where all that open source got them.
rhizome 16y ago
Oracle is a private company and as such has only obligations to its shareholders. This is not a fact, it's merely an article of faith of the religion known as Capitalism.
- vtail 16y ago
  That is a certain world view, indeed. Milton Friedman had an excellent argumentation defending this world view: http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/fr...
  - rhizome 16y ago
    I'll try to read that over the weekend, but I'll just note that it's not difficult, especially for someone of Friedman's stature and intelligence, to construct an internally consistent exposition of a particular worldview. That is to say, I hope he accounts for falsifiability. ;)
Prolorn 16y ago
That they are free to make this choice doesn't mean the community needs to roll over in accepting it. A response to this news that doesn't indicate displeasure would lack integrity.
noibl 16y ago
The reason is that Oracle inherited the stewardship of so many important projects when they bought Sun. After the purchase they have not said 'OK guys, new management; we don't do the open source thing; so long.' Rather they put the knife into various projects in different ways, seemingly at random. This behaviour taken in sum has an unsettling effect on the outlook of any project that Oracle is still involved with. How long will Netbeans itself survive? It's anybody's guess. It's not just one case of support being withdrawn. It's Russian roulette.
foljs 16y ago
> I don't understand why this move should piss off anybody in the OSS community. Oracle is a private company and as such has only obligations to its shareholders. They may or may not support and/or promote OSS projects as they see fit, same as every one of us. It's their free choice. Do you REALLLY don't understand that? Because it is, say, about 100% understandable. a) Oracle took away a tool some people used. b) Several of those people feel pissed by this. Between (a) and (b), what does all this fluff about this being "[Oracle's] free choice" has to do with anybody feeling pissed?

by vtail 16y ago

ebtalley 16y ago

Look at what kind of headway corporations like google have made in the mind of consumers when they go above and beyond the shareholder mantra. Oracle might make short term gains on their terms but they have started to poison a whole new generation of developers.

vtail 16y ago
Oracle is not a person to make such a decision; it is its shareholders who should decide how they want to spend their money. I wouldn't want to have a tax (as an Oracle investor or a private citizen) to support OSS. I may want to contribute my money and/or code as a donation, but that will be my own choice.
- jrockway 16y ago
  I don't want to support Oracle's sailboat racing. So, I don't own any Oracle shares. Pretty simple, isn't it?
  - oziumjinx 16y ago
    Larry Ellison pays for that out of pocket.
fleitz 16y ago
Webpages are not a complement to Oracle's business model, thus what makes sense for Oracle and Google to open source are vastly different. If you look at what Google open sources, it's all compliments to their business model. Google doesn't open source technology that it makes money from. As to going above and beyond in regards to open source, you'd have to look at where NetBeans came from Sun. Look where all that open source got them.

rhizome 16y ago

Oracle is a private company and as such has only obligations to its shareholders. This is not a fact, it's merely an article of faith of the religion known as Capitalism.

vtail 16y ago
That is a certain world view, indeed. Milton Friedman had an excellent argumentation defending this world view: http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/fr...
- rhizome 16y ago
  I'll try to read that over the weekend, but I'll just note that it's not difficult, especially for someone of Friedman's stature and intelligence, to construct an internally consistent exposition of a particular worldview. That is to say, I hope he accounts for falsifiability. ;)

Prolorn 16y ago

That they are free to make this choice doesn't mean the community needs to roll over in accepting it. A response to this news that doesn't indicate displeasure would lack integrity.

noibl 16y ago

The reason is that Oracle inherited the stewardship of so many important projects when they bought Sun. After the purchase they have not said 'OK guys, new management; we don't do the open source thing; so long.' Rather they put the knife into various projects in different ways, seemingly at random. This behaviour taken in sum has an unsettling effect on the outlook of any project that Oracle is still involved with. How long will Netbeans itself survive? It's anybody's guess. It's not just one case of support being withdrawn. It's Russian roulette.

foljs 16y ago

> I don't understand why this move should piss off anybody in the OSS community. Oracle is a private company and as such has only obligations to its shareholders. They may or may not support and/or promote OSS projects as they see fit, same as every one of us. It's their free choice. Do you REALLLY don't understand that? Because it is, say, about 100% understandable. a) Oracle took away a tool some people used. b) Several of those people feel pissed by this. Between (a) and (b), what does all this fluff about this being "[Oracle's] free choice" has to do with anybody feeling pissed?