101–110 of 140 posts
To prevent AWS and its ilk duplicating features of other's products but not really run (or pretending to not...) their software underneath.
I also hoped Morsi's tweaks to AGPL, the Lesser Affero GPLv3, would have become more popular.
[1] http://mo.morsi.org/blog/2009/08/13/lesser_affero_gplv3/
"The community now understands that the original concept of open source has to be fixed." Well, how lucky for the community that a wise startup came along and fixed open source. I get that open source business models are hard, especially in an increasingly commoditized space like databases. Still, it rubs me the wrong way when a business wants the goodwill of open source, then tries its hardest to bend the rules in i…
Why does one have to make money with open source? Why does that have to be a goal in and of itself. Are people going to take your stuff and not contribute back? Possibly .. that's why there's the FSF/Stallman and GPLv3 argument. Out of curiosity would the GPLv3 at least force providers like Amazon to release any modifications they make to FOSS stuff to turn it into a hosted/managed service? With things like Apache/BS…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does one have to make money with open source? Why does that have to be a goal in and of itself. Are people going to take your stuff and not contribute back? Possibly .. that's why there's the FSF/Stallman and GPLv3 argument. Out of curiosity would the GPLv3 at least force providers like Amazon to release any modifications they make to FOSS stuff to turn it into a hosted/managed service? With things like Apache/BS…
> Why does one have to make money with open source? Why does that have to be a goal in and of itself Money is air... without money good luck competing against other technologies. I find that the OSS community is insanely naive about where OSS comes from. There's this assumption that it just comes for free like manna from heaven. I seem HN geeks (saying that in a good way) say how they want to use Firefox vs Chrome be…
That's so overly simplistic. Google tries to spy on everything you do. Mozilla limits their ad revenue to an activity where people are actually looking for something by giving info to a third-party, surveillance (err search) service. They also let you easily change it with a private one built in. They're also owned by a foundation aimed at doing good vs a publicly-traded company that seems to get more evil over time.
So, using and investing in Firefox exposes you to less risk, creates less evil in short/long term, and possibly does more social good. It's an objectively better choice for folks concerned about surveillance-based businesses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does one have to make money with open source? Why does that have to be a goal in and of itself. Are people going to take your stuff and not contribute back? Possibly .. that's why there's the FSF/Stallman and GPLv3 argument. Out of curiosity would the GPLv3 at least force providers like Amazon to release any modifications they make to FOSS stuff to turn it into a hosted/managed service? With things like Apache/BS…
> Why does one have to make money with open source? Why does that have to be a goal in and of itself Money is air... without money good luck competing against other technologies. I find that the OSS community is insanely naive about where OSS comes from. There's this assumption that it just comes for free like manna from heaven. I seem HN geeks (saying that in a good way) say how they want to use Firefox vs Chrome be…
> But where does Firefox get its money from? Google. Google gets its money from ads.
> If you track down the source of all the OSS we're using there's some root source that most HN people would not be too happy about.
I use Konqueror, most of whose money comes from EU grants. I consider that a better source, and (not coincidentally IMO) it seems to result in a higher-quality codebase and a nicer program.
Who do you think pays for Debian? More generally it seems like while most US projects are corporate-funded, this isn't true for European OSS. A lot of OSS originates in (usually publicly-funded) academic projects and/or direct volunteering. Of course, those projects don't have the advertising budgets of corporation-in-all-but-name style OSS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does one have to make money with open source? Why does that have to be a goal in and of itself. Are people going to take your stuff and not contribute back? Possibly .. that's why there's the FSF/Stallman and GPLv3 argument. Out of curiosity would the GPLv3 at least force providers like Amazon to release any modifications they make to FOSS stuff to turn it into a hosted/managed service? With things like Apache/BS…
My dream for how to make money with open source is to create some software that is useful to people and then have a subset of my users pay me to implement, modify or maintain it for their specific purposes (example: "My accounting department would like quick books integration I'll pay you to add it in"). Given that i'd be the creator I should be the worlds foremost expert on it by default. Maybe that's naive?
You don't have to be a founder, you just need to be an expert. In terms of career development, I think the ROI is better on joining an existing project. But "progress depends on the unreasonable" and some people become founders nevertheless.
Changing the enterprise/closed license won't stop the cloud providers. Changing the open source license will: imagine a 4-part BSD that adds a license fee for organizations with over a billion in revenue. That goes to the heart of the problem and still lets everyone else use the software like it's a 3-part BSD.
Dammit TechCrunch... neither this nor the previous license were/are "open source". My comment from another thread: >As an outspoken critic of the original change, I applaud this move. I still wish it were open source, but this solves a lot of the confusing nomenclature I took offense with. Kudos. That being said, this is some serious bullshit: >But after the initial noise calmed down — and especially after some other…
The only place TechCrunch refers to it as open source is the title. The article body even explains that it isn't open source > By definition, an open-source license can’t have limitations. This new license does, so it’s technically not an open-source license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are the same. The full .NET framework effectively had the full source code available to read as the "Reference Source" but there was never any doubt it was proprietary. https://referencesource.microsoft.com/ You can mince words and make inconsequential adjustments to proprietary software licenses but they are still proprietary.
The current iteration of the .NET Framework, .NET Core, is proper Open Source under the MIT license. .NET Framework 4.x above is a different beast all-together and requires Mono for cross-platform compatibility. I am guessing you are fully aware of the difference, but worth pointing out for readers who might not be :)
.Net Core and .Net Framework are separate implementations of .Net Standard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The open source issue is fixed, it is called AGPL. AGPL has one major drawback though, it prevents free non-commercial use. If I use ghostscript for a research data collection system, I have to open source the whole thing? I wish there was a version of AGPL which exempted non-commercial use, as I doubt anybody means to force charities to pay up...
What would charities have to pay? If you’re non-commercial why would you balk at releasing your modifications?
It's not modifications, it's your entire application. AGPL doesn't have the linking exception.
Using an APGL library means I have to open source my account management code, or my data anonymisation system, etc.
Of course I'm perfectly happy to open source modifications, but that's not AGPL, that's LGPL (or ALGPL I guess?)