4 ms·

I don't think "open source" needs to apologize for anything. Making profit from it wasn't ever the goal for most projects. That you cannot derive profit from it

I don't think "open source" needs to apologize for anything. Making profit from it wasn't ever the goal for most projects. That you cannot derive profit from it may have to do with your business model. You could offer support for the product you are offering or maybe you can just write proprietary software. To think that there is a problem with open source as a concept sound like a pretty alien conclusion to be honest. Most open source projects don't have corporate backing obviously. The large ones that are heavily in use? Sure, because their developers use it too. > Open source projects end up to be designed by committee [..] I can agree on that point, but again, that is a minority of project that have become very successful. > En-masse community memebers get nothing from contrubuting to project That is the point of any free contribution. I know that can get exhausting and that there are ungrateful users that can ruin it for you, but I still don't see how open source is the problem and not your disposition to it. I think the article overall is not convincing. Maybe our expectations are too high, but whose aren't in todays software world. Without open source it just isn't possible to let developers teach themselves as efficient as they can do now. That these costs are externalized by companies and that they might not give back enough is the nature of voluntary work. But it certainly not undercutting some imagined market.

throwaway936482 6y ago
The problem with open source is not that the source is available, that you can modify it to your own needs, or that you can contribute back, it is that anyone can redistribute your software for free, and that you can't discriminate between e.g. small businesses or personal use and Google in your license terms. This cuts off the possibility of actually supporting yourself financially as an open source developer in many cases and is an ideological commitment that mostly benefits large corporations at the expense of individual developers.
- thekingofh 6y ago
  Then someone can dual license the code. Something like AGPL for general development and commercial licenses via request. This way the source is open at all times and companies that want to use it and modify it for commercial purposes can get a commercial license for that. In this case the biggest issue is copyright assignment. In order to dual license you require everyone who's contributed to agree. In large projects that's difficult. In a company, copyright can be handed over to the company, but anyone outside the company who contributes has to either sign over copyright or agree to letting their contributions be dual licensed. The best option looks like a tight copyleft license combined with a contract for copyright assignment and revenue sharing for contributors and dual licensed for commercial use. The most difficult part of this would be gauging developer worth based on contributions, but that's something that happens in every company anyways.
winwhiz 6y ago
A word to the wise: That word has a much another, infrequently used meaning. a·pol·o·gist /əˈpäləjəst/ noun: a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial. edit: Added more context.

throwaway936482 6y ago

The problem with open source is not that the source is available, that you can modify it to your own needs, or that you can contribute back, it is that anyone can redistribute your software for free, and that you can't discriminate between e.g. small businesses or personal use and Google in your license terms. This cuts off the possibility of actually supporting yourself financially as an open source developer in many cases and is an ideological commitment that mostly benefits large corporations at the expense of individual developers.

thekingofh 6y ago
Then someone can dual license the code. Something like AGPL for general development and commercial licenses via request. This way the source is open at all times and companies that want to use it and modify it for commercial purposes can get a commercial license for that. In this case the biggest issue is copyright assignment. In order to dual license you require everyone who's contributed to agree. In large projects that's difficult. In a company, copyright can be handed over to the company, but anyone outside the company who contributes has to either sign over copyright or agree to letting their contributions be dual licensed. The best option looks like a tight copyleft license combined with a contract for copyright assignment and revenue sharing for contributors and dual licensed for commercial use. The most difficult part of this would be gauging developer worth based on contributions, but that's something that happens in every company anyways.

winwhiz 6y ago

A word to the wise: That word has a much another, infrequently used meaning. a·pol·o·gist /əˈpäləjəst/ noun: a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial. edit: Added more context.