4 ms·

>> They very well could make their case to the modern end user that their approach is better than closed source SaaS solutions, or other freeware. Lots of peop

>> They very well could make their case to the modern end user that their approach is better than closed source SaaS solutions, or other freeware. Lots of people benefit from Free Software, yes. But asking the consumer to understand licensing and the implications thereof would be a fantastically ambitious and expensive project. Ultimately yes, FOSS outreach is targeted, because the first-order benefits are targeted. Outside the internet itself (where the message is there for anyone to find) only very narrow groups would get any value from a discussion on licenses. For example, say I make software for small-town bakers. My software might be open source, or closed source. My bakers couldn't care less. They care only about the first order benefits - does the planner work etc. Ironically "no-one" chooses Linux because of the license. They choose it because of the price. And consequently they dominate where "number of machines" is the key issue (aka servers). Consumers choose Windows or Android because of the first order benefits there. They are better than Linux Desktop or Linux on the phone. (And yes, I'm aware Android uses the Linux kernel, but Linux is not sufficient.) The whole "year of the Linux desktop" argument is for Joe public to care about License. 25 years in, and I think it's safe to assume that approach has failed. >> to industry groups, academic groups, hobbyists, and other professional or professional-adjacent groups. FOSS exists today precisely because these are yhe groups that matter. And they are, I think, the groups that will continue to matter.

kube-system 2y ago
> For example, say I make software for small-town bakers. My software might be open source, or closed source. My bakers couldn't care less. They care only about the first order benefits - does the planner work etc. And in today's business landscape, the model that the baker and the software developer both like the best is permissive-FOSS licensing with proprietary extensions and SaaS delivery. Or, an entirely proprietary application that runs on top of FOSS server components. Which is not looking good for the future of FOSS in terms of contributions back to the community. In this way, it looks like FOSS is becoming less for users and more for venture capitalists and startup founders :)
- bruce511 2y ago
  I feel like perhaps you are seeing a change in this? Obviously the baker doesn't care about the license- but certainly a SAAS approach has gained momentum. Whether this is because the baker wants it that way, or because its easier, and more profitable for providers that way, is debatable. Does FOSS offer less for end users than before? I'm not sure. The benefits of getting source code (reading, editing, compiling) has always demanded a skillset far removed from most users. Doing SAAS as FOSS just adds "hosting" to that list of skills. Yes, lots of startups advertise "Open Source" but that's just a marketing thing. They pivot the license when someone else starts getting commercial value from it. Folks contributing to VC projects know what they're getting. But there are lots of modern Open Source successes as well. Chromium has spawned a whole slew of browsers, Linux continues to grow (code wise), and most programming languages are now open. Writing Open Source has always been difficult from a commercial point of view, simply because its cheaper to commercialize work that didn't cost development $. But again, that's always been true. Red Hat didn't write Linux. Is the future for new Open Source projects rosy? I don't know. But folk have been predicting its demise since, well, it started.

kube-system 2y ago

> For example, say I make software for small-town bakers. My software might be open source, or closed source. My bakers couldn't care less. They care only about the first order benefits - does the planner work etc. And in today's business landscape, the model that the baker and the software developer both like the best is permissive-FOSS licensing with proprietary extensions and SaaS delivery. Or, an entirely proprietary application that runs on top of FOSS server components. Which is not looking good for the future of FOSS in terms of contributions back to the community. In this way, it looks like FOSS is becoming less for users and more for venture capitalists and startup founders :)

bruce511 2y ago
I feel like perhaps you are seeing a change in this? Obviously the baker doesn't care about the license- but certainly a SAAS approach has gained momentum. Whether this is because the baker wants it that way, or because its easier, and more profitable for providers that way, is debatable. Does FOSS offer less for end users than before? I'm not sure. The benefits of getting source code (reading, editing, compiling) has always demanded a skillset far removed from most users. Doing SAAS as FOSS just adds "hosting" to that list of skills. Yes, lots of startups advertise "Open Source" but that's just a marketing thing. They pivot the license when someone else starts getting commercial value from it. Folks contributing to VC projects know what they're getting. But there are lots of modern Open Source successes as well. Chromium has spawned a whole slew of browsers, Linux continues to grow (code wise), and most programming languages are now open. Writing Open Source has always been difficult from a commercial point of view, simply because its cheaper to commercialize work that didn't cost development $. But again, that's always been true. Red Hat didn't write Linux. Is the future for new Open Source projects rosy? I don't know. But folk have been predicting its demise since, well, it started.