fuller00

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by fuller00 8y ago

   I think the discussion is centered around preserving the component of Open source which includes funding for the software but retains availability of the source. In such a case, it may not be possible to retain the full pure classic OSS def
2. 2.▲
   by fuller00 8y ago

   One model that might work is the Unreal Engine model, so an OSS license that is free for personal use, but for commercial use, it might require 3% (say) of your profit from sales of the software product.
3. 3.▲
   by fuller00 8y ago

   One of the most intriguing models to fund OSS that I've seen lately is ICOs. The only downside to it being that it fits a narrow band of software which can have a marketplace. So if you're developing the next coreutils "ls&qu
4. 4.▲
   by fuller00 8y ago

   I've been thinking about this for some time and I agree with the gist of the article. Most OSS that comes out: 1. Either funded by giant megacorps because they're trying to commoditize their competitor's edge: See kubernetes,
5. 5.▲
   by fuller00 8y ago

   Haha you stole the words from my mouth. The fact that CentOS exists undermines all of Redhat's business model. Honestly, the future of Open source software is probably going to be like Sqlite, in the best case scenario: 1. The core o