3 ms·
Not sure I feel about this. It reminds me of Enthought or Anaconda python or RStudio or RedHat for linux. Should companies be able to 'own' an open source sof
by twelfthnight 12y ago
Not sure I feel about this. It reminds me of Enthought or Anaconda python or RStudio or RedHat for linux. Should companies be able to 'own' an open source software by funneling a majority of users through their distributions and by funding developers to build the language in a way advantageous to the company? In some way, sure, since it can be mutually beneficial to the company and the users. But in another way, it goes against the spirit of a community, rather than oligarchy, contributing to the software.
EDIT:
On second thought, it seems naive to think that any large scale open source software doesn't have some corporate backing. For instance, Google and python / Go. I guess that's not so bad.
- snoman 12y agoRStudio has the Open Source AGPL v3 version that, ostensibly, is only different from their commercial offering in that it there is support for the commercial version, I'm perfectly fine with it. This MRAN looks to be a similar situation (that is, it's available on their OSS offering Revolution R Open)
- pjmlp 12y agoI find it very positive. Those developers need to pay their bills and not all open source projects can survive from university students building up their CV portfolio. Once upon a time I was a strong FOSS proponent, during university days. Then I worked in environments that were FOSS friendly and seen up close that making a living out FOSS doesn't really cut it. The majority of FOSS consumers aren't like HNERS They just want everything free without giving back a cent or any other form of contribution.