4 ms·

Definitely a cool collection of, as the article calls them "quick wins." The stablelib.com business model is pretty interesting too. Not sure what to think abou

• mlinksva 11y ago
  The business is subscription, getting access to a (proprietary?) command line tool and "exclusive" (subscriber-only, proprietary?) training materials? That's what I guess from the home page. Accurate?
  • dchest 11y ago
    Mostly it's for commercial support (maintenance: bug fixes, backporting of patches, security alerts, and technical support) of the packages included in the distribution, as we don't have the tool (will probably be open sourced) or exclusive content yet. Thanks for the interest!
    • allendoerfer 11y ago
      How do you defend yourself against somebody just mirroring the libraries? I was just researching licenses for a similar business model (in a completely different field) and came to the conclusion, that it does not really work. AGPL would somewhat work, but would still have the downside that commercial entities could use the software just for tooling and internal processes, which most software is used for anyway. In my mind Open Source prevents commercial use of applications only if the software is very likely to be shipped to the client, for example Qt. With libraries it might look different, because people just get used to them and want to use them everywhere. I would be very interested to hear your input!
      • dchest 11y ago
        Sorry for the late reply! Since the original upstream packages are all open source, there's pretty much no point in mirroring. The major value of such business is mainly commercial support, which includes maintaining compatibility and solving the problems that clients have with packages.