5 ms·

Almost none of the reasons have anything to do with releasing the source. You can release the source but still maintain central control. They shouldn’t even hav

by rp1 5y ago

Almost none of the reasons have anything to do with releasing the source. You can release the source but still maintain central control. They shouldn’t even have posted this. Obviously they want to make money from their products, and that’s fine.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
foxfluff 5y ago
Yea, it's embarrassingly bad. It sounds like their idea of open source is something along the lines of "slap a MIT license on it, throw it over fence, and hope random nerds on the internet finish it while we wait idly."
- rob_c 5y ago
  Well the guy seems like a VP in corporate, probably would struggle with more than hello world himself...
  - dotancohen 5y ago
    I think it's far more likely that he is a better computer scientist, and a better programmer, than the vast majority of people you or I know.
    - rhapsodic 5y ago
      >I think it's far more likely that he is a better computer scientist, and a better programmer, than the vast majority of people you or I know. There's a lot of information about Jon McLoone available online (personal website, linkedin, etc.), but aside from his degree in Mathematics and a long association with Wolfram (in what appear to be primarily non-technical roles), I couldn't find anything that supports your statement. I'm not saying it's not out there, just that I couldn't find it.
cycomanic 5y ago
The irony certainly is that wolfram uses open source libraries (and there were some twitter threads that they might be aying a bit fast and loose with the acknowledgement of LGPL licenses)
- leephillips 5y ago
  Indeed: https://twitter.com/hypergeometer/status/1470505437934067725 https://twitter.com/hypergeometer/status/1470505437934067725
Veen 5y ago
I think what he has in mind is not "open source" per se, but the way open source projects tend to organize development—distributed development, unpaid volunteers, open communities, etc. He wants the Cathedral, not the Bazaar—and that's fine; there's no reason everything should be developed by a community of volunteers. But, as you say, there's nothing to stop them centralizing development but releasing source code. (Plus, I think putting Stephen Wolfram at the top of a Linux kernel-type project is unlikely to work well at all.)
kube-system 5y ago
> You can release the source but still maintain central control. Until someone with a larger budget than you forks it and uses their immense resources to force you out of the market. Then you liquidate your company and someone else gets the rights to maintain your fork.
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  I think this is an underrated point that has been more noticeable with AWS in particular. Their own CentOS spin, their own ElasticSearch distro, their own elastic cloud, etc.
- civilized 5y ago
  There is zero chance that Wolfram's products would be "stolen" in this way. No one is interested in developing them but Stephen Wolfram.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    I’m sure some cloud provider would love to slap wolfram features on to their existing service offerings as a value-add.
    - fsflover 5y ago
      How about using AGPLv3?
    - tubby12345 5y ago
      When people say "I'm sure" I'm always just floored. Why are you so sure? Have you spoken to these supposed cloud providers and had them tell you this? Here's one I'm sure about: no one cares about Mathematica except a couple of schools, professors, and finance wonks who've clung to it since the early days of CAS. The language is wacky enough that no mainstream user would prefer it (even with all of its built-ins) over Matlab or scipy. And I say this as someone that has developed things in Mathematica.
- Arcsech 5y ago

by rp1 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

foxfluff 5y ago

Yea, it's embarrassingly bad. It sounds like their idea of open source is something along the lines of "slap a MIT license on it, throw it over fence, and hope random nerds on the internet finish it while we wait idly."

rob_c 5y ago
Well the guy seems like a VP in corporate, probably would struggle with more than hello world himself...
- dotancohen 5y ago
  I think it's far more likely that he is a better computer scientist, and a better programmer, than the vast majority of people you or I know.
  - rhapsodic 5y ago
    >I think it's far more likely that he is a better computer scientist, and a better programmer, than the vast majority of people you or I know. There's a lot of information about Jon McLoone available online (personal website, linkedin, etc.), but aside from his degree in Mathematics and a long association with Wolfram (in what appear to be primarily non-technical roles), I couldn't find anything that supports your statement. I'm not saying it's not out there, just that I couldn't find it.

cycomanic 5y ago

The irony certainly is that wolfram uses open source libraries (and there were some twitter threads that they might be aying a bit fast and loose with the acknowledgement of LGPL licenses)

leephillips 5y ago
Indeed: https://twitter.com/hypergeometer/status/1470505437934067725 https://twitter.com/hypergeometer/status/1470505437934067725

Veen 5y ago

I think what he has in mind is not "open source" per se, but the way open source projects tend to organize development—distributed development, unpaid volunteers, open communities, etc. He wants the Cathedral, not the Bazaar—and that's fine; there's no reason everything should be developed by a community of volunteers. But, as you say, there's nothing to stop them centralizing development but releasing source code. (Plus, I think putting Stephen Wolfram at the top of a Linux kernel-type project is unlikely to work well at all.)

kube-system 5y ago

> You can release the source but still maintain central control. Until someone with a larger budget than you forks it and uses their immense resources to force you out of the market. Then you liquidate your company and someone else gets the rights to maintain your fork.

unethical_ban 5y ago
I think this is an underrated point that has been more noticeable with AWS in particular. Their own CentOS spin, their own ElasticSearch distro, their own elastic cloud, etc.
civilized 5y ago
There is zero chance that Wolfram's products would be "stolen" in this way. No one is interested in developing them but Stephen Wolfram.
- kube-system 5y ago
  I’m sure some cloud provider would love to slap wolfram features on to their existing service offerings as a value-add.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    How about using AGPLv3?
  - tubby12345 5y ago
    When people say "I'm sure" I'm always just floored. Why are you so sure? Have you spoken to these supposed cloud providers and had them tell you this? Here's one I'm sure about: no one cares about Mathematica except a couple of schools, professors, and finance wonks who've clung to it since the early days of CAS. The language is wacky enough that no mainstream user would prefer it (even with all of its built-ins) over Matlab or scipy. And I say this as someone that has developed things in Mathematica.
Arcsech 5y ago