4 ms·

> re: things being produced as their exclusive property, what is the issue with this? They did the work to make the thing, therefore it's their property (unless

by zem 3y ago

> re: things being produced as their exclusive property, what is the issue with this? They did the work to make the thing, therefore it's their property (unless they choose to release it otherwise). the issue is that they also want the benefit of not being ignored, so they claim to be less proprietary than they actually are while trying to build mindshare

rglover 3y ago
> the issue is that they also want the benefit of not being ignored So in order to get any interest in your project, you have to be open source (and align with the ideology absolutely)?
- hnoyrnndd 3y ago
  I don’t think this was intended to be a normative statement. Just an observation that “open source as marketing” seems to work, so people use it despite it not actually being true of their project.
- zem 3y ago
  you don't have to; you could seek interest among fans of proprietary software instead, using whatever marketing techniques work there. apple has had a fair amount of success with that approach e.g.
- Spivak 3y ago
  In order to get interest in your product among people who believe in the mission of OSS, you do actually have to be OSS. I could agree if we were talking about something unrelated that OSS folks also happen to like but yeah, your product does have to not have meat if you want buy-in from vegetarians.
Pannoniae 3y ago
not gonna lie this sounds like a borderline cultish view on things (only OSI-approved open source projects should get recognition, rest should be damned to obscurity and ridicule) having the source available is a huge benefit compared to proprietary software as you can view, introspect and patch your tool - having a permissive licence is a "nice-to-have", not an entitlement.
- zem 3y ago
  i didn't say anything about OSI approval, or even about "should". the fact is that a lot of people (myself included) have significantly less interest in a project if it is proprietary, and especially if it looks like the proprietor is going to exert control over it as a means of extracting value. and other people are fine with it, and might even prefer a project controlled by a company they trust to do a good job. and there's nothing wrong with either one! live and let live, with nothing to ridicule either way. what is wrong is when companies entice the people who would otherwise just have ignored them by claiming to be open, and then turn around and try to exert control once they already have mindshare. that makes people feel baited and switched and leads to a very natural amount of resentment.

by zem 3y ago

rglover 3y ago

> the issue is that they also want the benefit of not being ignored So in order to get any interest in your project, you have to be open source (and align with the ideology absolutely)?

hnoyrnndd 3y ago
I don’t think this was intended to be a normative statement. Just an observation that “open source as marketing” seems to work, so people use it despite it not actually being true of their project.
zem 3y ago
you don't have to; you could seek interest among fans of proprietary software instead, using whatever marketing techniques work there. apple has had a fair amount of success with that approach e.g.
Spivak 3y ago
In order to get interest in your product among people who believe in the mission of OSS, you do actually have to be OSS. I could agree if we were talking about something unrelated that OSS folks also happen to like but yeah, your product does have to not have meat if you want buy-in from vegetarians.

Pannoniae 3y ago

not gonna lie this sounds like a borderline cultish view on things (only OSI-approved open source projects should get recognition, rest should be damned to obscurity and ridicule) having the source available is a huge benefit compared to proprietary software as you can view, introspect and patch your tool - having a permissive licence is a "nice-to-have", not an entitlement.

zem 3y ago
i didn't say anything about OSI approval, or even about "should". the fact is that a lot of people (myself included) have significantly less interest in a project if it is proprietary, and especially if it looks like the proprietor is going to exert control over it as a means of extracting value. and other people are fine with it, and might even prefer a project controlled by a company they trust to do a good job. and there's nothing wrong with either one! live and let live, with nothing to ridicule either way. what is wrong is when companies entice the people who would otherwise just have ignored them by claiming to be open, and then turn around and try to exert control once they already have mindshare. that makes people feel baited and switched and leads to a very natural amount of resentment.