Software vendors dump open source, go for the cash grab
-
First, they build programs with open source. Then they build their business with open source. Then they abandon it and cash out.
Money makes the source go closed
-
First, they build programs with open source. Then they build their business with open source. Then they abandon it and cash out.
Money makes the source go closed
Article wrote:
Then they abandon it and cash out.
Then lawyers appear in the scene and everything gets even more messed
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
First, they build programs with open source. Then they build their business with open source. Then they abandon it and cash out.
Money makes the source go closed
Last line of article is part of a Stallman quote:
Stallman:
...extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it is destructive.
Either I don't fully understand that quote, or it is completely ridiculous. 1) It is a known fact that if you provide your software for free then like 15% of people pay some amount for it (85% or more never pay for it). A developer cannot support herself from the donations even on very popular projects. 2) Also, "restricting their use of it" is actually the definition of every product where anyone gets paid. For example: a) Teslas are not free. You are restricted from their use, until you pay for one. b) Plumbing services are not free. You are restricted from their use, until you pay (or agree to pay) the plumber. c) Internet service is not free. You are restricted from its use until you pay for it. d) Software development is not free. You are restricted from having software developed until you pay the software developer. e) ad infinitum... 3) if something is not of restricted use, then people (consumers) use it freely and no one is paid for the thing, service, etc. The article also mentions that you can continue to use older versions of the software which fell under the original open source license -- before the company or individual placed it under a new restrictive license. Also, it is quite likely that the current feeling that software is valueless has been caused by software developers giving everything away. In summary, I have no idea what that article is talking about. But, I'm sure someone will explain it to me. :rolleyes:
-
Last line of article is part of a Stallman quote:
Stallman:
...extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it is destructive.
Either I don't fully understand that quote, or it is completely ridiculous. 1) It is a known fact that if you provide your software for free then like 15% of people pay some amount for it (85% or more never pay for it). A developer cannot support herself from the donations even on very popular projects. 2) Also, "restricting their use of it" is actually the definition of every product where anyone gets paid. For example: a) Teslas are not free. You are restricted from their use, until you pay for one. b) Plumbing services are not free. You are restricted from their use, until you pay (or agree to pay) the plumber. c) Internet service is not free. You are restricted from its use until you pay for it. d) Software development is not free. You are restricted from having software developed until you pay the software developer. e) ad infinitum... 3) if something is not of restricted use, then people (consumers) use it freely and no one is paid for the thing, service, etc. The article also mentions that you can continue to use older versions of the software which fell under the original open source license -- before the company or individual placed it under a new restrictive license. Also, it is quite likely that the current feeling that software is valueless has been caused by software developers giving everything away. In summary, I have no idea what that article is talking about. But, I'm sure someone will explain it to me. :rolleyes:
And Stallman himself requires payment for him to give a talk somewhere, thus 'extracting money by restricting his use' :| Where I have problems with the way some open source companies are going. They have their software open sourced initially, then once it's become popular (and the bugs get ironed out by the 'many eyes'), they switch to a closed source model. Or at least a supported fork of it is closed source. RedHat, Redis, MySQL, MongoDB, Elastic, etc., etc.
TTFN - Kent
-
And Stallman himself requires payment for him to give a talk somewhere, thus 'extracting money by restricting his use' :| Where I have problems with the way some open source companies are going. They have their software open sourced initially, then once it's become popular (and the bugs get ironed out by the 'many eyes'), they switch to a closed source model. Or at least a supported fork of it is closed source. RedHat, Redis, MySQL, MongoDB, Elastic, etc., etc.
TTFN - Kent
Kent Sharkey wrote:
Stallman himself requires payment for him to give a talk somewhere, thus 'extracting money by restricting his use'
:laugh:
Kent Sharkey wrote:
They have their software open sourced initially, then once it's become popular (and the bugs get ironed out by the 'many eyes'), they switch to a closed source model.
Yeah, that feels a bit wrong for sure. But, I also wonder if any Open Source Software is really 100% open source forever. Here's what I mean. Pick any available Open Source Software out there and imagine the following happening: 1) millions of devs start using it in their projects. 2) Mega-Companies start using the software and building services on top of it which allow them to make $$$$Ba-jillions. 3) Mega-Bigster Company says to original OS dev, "Hey, we'll pay you 100 million to take this code private. Ba-CHING!!!! It is likely that every OS dev out there is going to roll over and start believing that Open Source means something entirely different than the original (mostly false) altruistic idea of "sharing my software" (say this in a very nasally voice inside your head so it sounds like every geek you've ever talked to :laugh: ). So I'm not really sure that OS software really exists. I mean people say it does and that they're super altruistic, but computers cost $$$ and run on electricity (bill) so not too many devs living in the woods, eating squirrels and foraging for berries develop software. :rolleyes: OSS is probably just a "Marketing Ploy" to get people to use it. Remember, you need bait for every type of fish. :laugh: Another way to say it is..."OSS is for sale."
-
Last line of article is part of a Stallman quote:
Stallman:
...extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it is destructive.
Either I don't fully understand that quote, or it is completely ridiculous. 1) It is a known fact that if you provide your software for free then like 15% of people pay some amount for it (85% or more never pay for it). A developer cannot support herself from the donations even on very popular projects. 2) Also, "restricting their use of it" is actually the definition of every product where anyone gets paid. For example: a) Teslas are not free. You are restricted from their use, until you pay for one. b) Plumbing services are not free. You are restricted from their use, until you pay (or agree to pay) the plumber. c) Internet service is not free. You are restricted from its use until you pay for it. d) Software development is not free. You are restricted from having software developed until you pay the software developer. e) ad infinitum... 3) if something is not of restricted use, then people (consumers) use it freely and no one is paid for the thing, service, etc. The article also mentions that you can continue to use older versions of the software which fell under the original open source license -- before the company or individual placed it under a new restrictive license. Also, it is quite likely that the current feeling that software is valueless has been caused by software developers giving everything away. In summary, I have no idea what that article is talking about. But, I'm sure someone will explain it to me. :rolleyes:
raddevus wrote:
Also, it is quite likely that the current feeling that software is valueless has been caused by software developers giving everything away.
That's 100% AAPL's doing and why I think you should most definitely give them the finger and forget they exist if you are a software developer.
