3 ms·
They already do. Not everything even in the server segment is unicorns and rainbows; a lot of corporate “fauxpen source” is SDKs for proprietary hosted services
by WesolyKubeczek 5y ago
They already do. Not everything even in the server segment is unicorns and rainbows; a lot of corporate “fauxpen source” is SDKs for proprietary hosted services, and paid staff working on those “OSS” offerings is more about “building a vibrant community” (read: extracting free labor) and making sure the only contributions accepted are those that narrowly match their internal roadmaps (which reinforces my previous point).
I mean, it’s still better than closed source SDKs with bugs unfixed for years and books written about working around them, but that would be a pretty low bar anyway.
- lioeters 5y agoTIL: > fauxpen source > Etymology: a term invented by Phil Marsosudiro at a dinner party in North Carolina > Date: 2 May 2009 > A description of software that claims to be open source, but lacks the full freedoms required by the Open Source Definition. http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php > synonyms: see open core, neo-proprietary > antonyms: see Linux kernel, Apache, OpenNMS https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/open-vs-fauxpen https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/open-vs-fauxpen (2009)