3 ms·

Investors really aren’t the primary motivating factor, here. Companies who generate billions in revenue using open source products while refusing to contribute

Investors really aren’t the primary motivating factor, here. Companies who generate billions in revenue using open source products while refusing to contribute financially to their ongoing viability are the primary motivating factor. You have bills to pay and you want to do what you love doing and they don’t care about that, so you explore your options as the copyright holder. Investor greed came after that. Ditto for “kids today take it for granted”.

sogrady 4y ago
By way of disclosure, I'm the author of the linked piece. That said, having spoken to most of the parties involved prior to their decisions to relicense, I can tell you that investors were a major motivating factor in many if not all cases. In certain instances, this was because a particular investor convened private meetings between groups of commercial backers of open source projects - both portfolio companies and not - to propose non-open source alternatives, and companies went along with it. In other cases, board members were swayed by arguments from these same investors. Either way, pressure to try and replicate proprietary software profit margins from investors was a significant, if not sole, motivating factor in the decisions in question. If you look at the history of investors in many of the companies involved the pattern is notable.
MichaelZuo 4y ago
Why do you believe open source developers should attach themselves to the same 'Companies who generate billions in revenue using open source products'? I think that would negate one of the primary attractions of being an open source developer, not being financially tied, or have any kind of obligations, to any specific group. Also, being able to credibly claim that they are not financially biased towards any outcome, position, decision, etc...
- killjoywashere 4y ago
  Splendid isolation is a delusion that makes the world a more dangerous place.

sogrady 4y ago

By way of disclosure, I'm the author of the linked piece. That said, having spoken to most of the parties involved prior to their decisions to relicense, I can tell you that investors were a major motivating factor in many if not all cases. In certain instances, this was because a particular investor convened private meetings between groups of commercial backers of open source projects - both portfolio companies and not - to propose non-open source alternatives, and companies went along with it. In other cases, board members were swayed by arguments from these same investors. Either way, pressure to try and replicate proprietary software profit margins from investors was a significant, if not sole, motivating factor in the decisions in question. If you look at the history of investors in many of the companies involved the pattern is notable.

MichaelZuo 4y ago

Why do you believe open source developers should attach themselves to the same 'Companies who generate billions in revenue using open source products'? I think that would negate one of the primary attractions of being an open source developer, not being financially tied, or have any kind of obligations, to any specific group. Also, being able to credibly claim that they are not financially biased towards any outcome, position, decision, etc...

killjoywashere 4y ago
Splendid isolation is a delusion that makes the world a more dangerous place.