3 ms·
That's a consequence of being open source. All the main open source licenses mean that anyone would be able to use OpenSSL without paying a cent to the creator
by QuantumChaos 12y ago
That's a consequence of being open source. All the main open source licenses mean that anyone would be able to use OpenSSL without paying a cent to the creators.
Advocates of open source often claim that creators of open source software can make money by selling services to users, like consulting services. As this article (and others) describe, this approach also didn't work that well for the OpenSSL team.
- pyre 12y agoAnother possibility is that CommercialSSL becomes a product that takes a page from the Oracle playbook and panders to selling to these large enterprises, with little care for the needs of smaller businesses.
- zhte415 12y agoOpen source > indeed, I agree. My perspective is principally the harmony or conflict of the open source -ness of OpenSSL, and the Tragedy of the Commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons of all using a resource while few feeling the need to compensate. It is interesting that open source has often found solutions around this 'tragedy' - ownership (contributing or forking) vs access (using) - but I feel a shame that those that work hard towards creating a public good (OpenSSL) only receive recognition when things go wrong, while those that have criticised (the possibly competing consultancies, perhaps) have themselves not forked or recreated a better solution, as it seems having the ability, confidence or willingness to carry the risk to credibility (for a better solution), or knowingly taken advantage of an exploit, is more profitable than giving back. tl;dr I admire these Steves and other contributors very much, and wish they get what they deserve. I guess the world of Star Trek is still somewhat way off.