3 ms·

>Was this an "open-source folks will do it for free anyhow" I doubt it. Open-sourcing anything is a lot of work. Managing open-source projects is a lot of work

>Was this an "open-source folks will do it for free anyhow" I doubt it. Open-sourcing anything is a lot of work. Managing open-source projects is a lot of work. There are no guarantees that that project will even get any external development traction or mindshare, and if this is still an important component to you, you'll be paying developers to build it out anyway.

brazzledazzle 4y ago
It is a little odd that they pulled the announcement page. But the repo is still available so who knows. Maybe they thought it would be poorly received by other employees after the layoffs? Seems like a stretch.
- op00to 4y ago
  It was pulled because they used the term "open source", and the Confluent Community License, while being source-available and allows modifications prevents use of the code in a SaaS environment. So kinda not totally open. But it's just the confluent cli - it's not like someone's gonna base their SaaS around it, should just be BSDed or something.
  - brazzledazzle 4y ago
    I don't really understand the intensity of folks that insist on open source meaning something very narrow and specific but different strokes. To me something is open source if I can use it and since I have no intention of ever competing with any of these companies in the SaaS space I don't really care that my rights are limited because they effectively aren't. This is going to sound stupid because I didn't put any real thought into it but: shouldn't open source advocates also be against calling the GPL open source? It doesn't just constrain what you are permitted to do it also obligates you to take certain actions. I like the GPL personally and it's obviously different from these anti-SaaS licenses but isn't all of this really about freedom?
    - macspoofing 4y ago
      >I don't really understand the intensity of folks that insist on open source meaning something very narrow and specific but different strokes. Words have defined meanings and are important for conveying information and communicating. If you just make up definitions to commonly understood terms, it leads to confusion. >To me something is open source if ... So you took a precisely defined phrase[1] that many people put a lot of thought and negotiation into (working with various stakeholders), has been in wide use for decades by thousands of companies and organizations, and hundreds of thousands (or millions) of developers, threw that definition out, and created your own definition because of reasons - how does help anything? >This is going to sound stupid because I didn't put any real thought into it Hmmm. [1] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- rmoff 4y ago
  The post got pulled because it was wrong, see https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/10lonsi/comment/j5z8yn2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/10lonsi/commen...

brazzledazzle 4y ago

It is a little odd that they pulled the announcement page. But the repo is still available so who knows. Maybe they thought it would be poorly received by other employees after the layoffs? Seems like a stretch.

op00to 4y ago
It was pulled because they used the term "open source", and the Confluent Community License, while being source-available and allows modifications prevents use of the code in a SaaS environment. So kinda not totally open. But it's just the confluent cli - it's not like someone's gonna base their SaaS around it, should just be BSDed or something.
- brazzledazzle 4y ago
  I don't really understand the intensity of folks that insist on open source meaning something very narrow and specific but different strokes. To me something is open source if I can use it and since I have no intention of ever competing with any of these companies in the SaaS space I don't really care that my rights are limited because they effectively aren't. This is going to sound stupid because I didn't put any real thought into it but: shouldn't open source advocates also be against calling the GPL open source? It doesn't just constrain what you are permitted to do it also obligates you to take certain actions. I like the GPL personally and it's obviously different from these anti-SaaS licenses but isn't all of this really about freedom?
  - macspoofing 4y ago
    >I don't really understand the intensity of folks that insist on open source meaning something very narrow and specific but different strokes. Words have defined meanings and are important for conveying information and communicating. If you just make up definitions to commonly understood terms, it leads to confusion. >To me something is open source if ... So you took a precisely defined phrase[1] that many people put a lot of thought and negotiation into (working with various stakeholders), has been in wide use for decades by thousands of companies and organizations, and hundreds of thousands (or millions) of developers, threw that definition out, and created your own definition because of reasons - how does help anything? >This is going to sound stupid because I didn't put any real thought into it Hmmm. [1] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
rmoff 4y ago
The post got pulled because it was wrong, see https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/10lonsi/comment/j5z8yn2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/10lonsi/commen...