Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

blog.wolfram.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 316 posts

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#141

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

13415 wrote: post #125
paxys wrote: post #7

Most of their points are valid for community driven open source projects but the existence of large corporate ones like Chrome, Android, .net, VS Code, Tensorflow and lots more prove that exerting tight central control while being fully open source is very much possible.

That's the thing, though, you can make money with open source software but only if your business model is not based on selling software. There are some companies for whom dual licensing work (e.g. AdaCore) but these are really the exception. Generally, selling open source software does not work, and not everybody wants to primarily sell server space ("web app" subscriptions), maintenance, troubleshooting and other de…

> you can make money with open source software but only if your business model is not based on selling software

Depends on the scale you're looking for. We (ardour.org) make money with open source software by encouraging people to pay for our software, though it is GPL'ed. Do we make millions of dollars? no. Does it make money? yes.

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#142

Post by zepto »

chrisseaton wrote: post #134
krallja wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Providing Java for free (no matter whether open or closed-source) was a big strategic blunder for Sun: it commoditized CPU architectures by providing an abstraction layer over them. Write once, run anywhere! The problem was, Intel chips were cheaper. So people just ran their Java workloads on their existing x86 PCs instead of buying expensive Sun hardware. Sun should have never written or released Java: it consumed r…

> it commoditized CPU architectures by providing an abstraction layer over them I think that was part of the point - let people run their existing applications on Sun hardware. Yes it was more expensive but it was also more capable. Emphasising running on lots of smaller 'commodity' instances wasn't yet the done thing at the time.

You are right that it was the point. It was simply a bad goal. Sun hoped it would allow people to migrate to their hardware, when instead it enabled them to migrate away, or to never have to choose.

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#143

Post by derefr »

chrisseaton wrote: post #5

Most of these are about wanting control over the design of the software - but releasing their code doesn't have any impact on that - I don't get it? Java is open source - Oracle still tightly controls and manages the design of Java. For example 'Bad design is expensive' - how releasing your source lead to bad design? That's a complete non-sequitur.

Wolfram here were contrasting their model against the idea that products like Mathematica could have been developed in a fully “open source” manner. (It’s a false binary, but it’s what they’re doing.)

“Open source” is a different thing than “source-available” or “shared-source.” Many closed-source products are “source-available” in the manner you’re talking about, but this does not make them “open source.”

You’re not really an open-source project, in the conventional meaning of the term, until either

1. Your project starts accepting code contributions from the community (if perhaps after a gruelling code-contribution process); or

2. Your project’s codebase becomes licensed in a way that allows people to fork it, add their own changes, and then use the result themselves to achieve their own ends (if perhaps only non-commercial ends.)

Which are two sides of the same coin, really; they both imply that people will be tinkering inside your code; and that the “canonical” version of your code in everyone else’s mind might then become the version that the community thinks is better, rather than your official release.

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#144

Post by zepto »

turbinerneiter wrote: post #140
maccard wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are dozens of edge cases that you can argue; is redistribution allowed, is attribution required, etc. - open source is a blanket statement and is perfectly suitable as a term IMO.

Open source is a well defined term that means a very specific thing. The definition is exactly 1 sentence long. It's not a blanket term at all. Something is Open Sources if the code is published under a license that grants the user the right to study, change and redistribute to anyone and for any purpose. There is other similar things, like source available, or stricter subsets like Free Software. And there is many t…

> redistribute to anyone and for any purpose.

This is certainly not a universally accepted definition. ‘Open source’ has long been a generic term for any situation in which the source is available. People may want it to be a term of art with a technical definition, but that isn’t how it is used in general.

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#145

Post by flomo »

vlovich123 wrote: post #86
chubot wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are arguing it does have impact on that. The company that created Java went out of business and was sold to Oracle for a fraction of its original worth. So Java was a business failure -- or at least I'd be interested to see someone defend Java as a business success. So I think it's realistic to at least engage with their argument seriously rather than dismiss it. The argument is that open source licenses are inc…

Counter: Android is open source.

Covered by point 10 (quid pro quo) - Android is both a Commercial Trap (effectively requires Google Play services) and User Exploitation.

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#146

Post by [deleted] »

derefr wrote: post #143
chrisseaton wrote: post #5

Most of these are about wanting control over the design of the software - but releasing their code doesn't have any impact on that - I don't get it? Java is open source - Oracle still tightly controls and manages the design of Java. For example 'Bad design is expensive' - how releasing your source lead to bad design? That's a complete non-sequitur.

Wolfram here were contrasting their model against the idea that products like Mathematica could have been developed in a fully “open source” manner. (It’s a false binary, but it’s what they’re doing.) “Open source” is a different thing than “source-available” or “shared-source.” Many closed-source products are “source-available” in the manner you’re talking about, but this does not make them “open source.” You’re not…

[deleted]

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#147

Post by [deleted] »

derefr wrote: post #143
chrisseaton wrote: post #5

Most of these are about wanting control over the design of the software - but releasing their code doesn't have any impact on that - I don't get it? Java is open source - Oracle still tightly controls and manages the design of Java. For example 'Bad design is expensive' - how releasing your source lead to bad design? That's a complete non-sequitur.

Wolfram here were contrasting their model against the idea that products like Mathematica could have been developed in a fully “open source” manner. (It’s a false binary, but it’s what they’re doing.) “Open source” is a different thing than “source-available” or “shared-source.” Many closed-source products are “source-available” in the manner you’re talking about, but this does not make them “open source.” You’re not…

[deleted]

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#148

Post by chubot »

sjansen wrote: post #76
chubot wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are arguing it does have impact on that. The company that created Java went out of business and was sold to Oracle for a fraction of its original worth. So Java was a business failure -- or at least I'd be interested to see someone defend Java as a business success. So I think it's realistic to at least engage with their argument seriously rather than dismiss it. The argument is that open source licenses are inc…

You've made the mistake of expressing an unpopular opinion, so you're getting down voted. I strongly dislike proprietary software, but you raise valid concerns that should be considered instead of being downvoted into silence. (edit: at the time I wrote this comment, the parent appeared to be headed for oblivion, happily that appears to have improved) I don't know that open sourcing Java killed Sun. More likely it wa…

Yes agreed, as I mentioned in this other comment I think of it as Google and Microsoft successfully "commoditizing their complements", while Sun and Netscape failed to:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29605638

And to be clear I would like an open source Wolfram -- in fact it's almost a requirement before I spend the effort to learn it! (I have never learned a proprietary language outside of work or school)

I just think it's obvious why it's not open source -- because they have a working and sustainable business model! And on the other side, I think it's great to actually pay for what you use, rather than having something free that's filled with dark patterns or irrelevant ads, etc.

It's a hard problem, and it's obvious that we still don't know the answers :)

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#149

Post by sodality2 »

candiddevmike wrote: post #68
ImprobableTruth wrote: post #9

This is just the usual "proprietary software is higher quality, we swear". Accurately voicing my thoughts on this would probably go against the HN guidelines, so I'll just let this sentence from the article speak for itself: >But our vision is a grand one—unify all of computation into a single coherent language, and for that, the FOSS development model is not well suited. Well, good luck with that.

I don't think they're wrong. Open source does not work with product management. There will always be friction with what is on the roadmap vs what the community wants to add. Additionally, if Wolfram wants to monetize it somehow, they have to own supporting it--including the contributions that they don't necessarily want. If they anger the community, then the community forks the project and Wolfram loses complete cont…

> There will always be friction with what is on the roadmap vs what the community wants to add.

Open source does not necessitate listening to the community. Ever. Even if they were to release it under an OSS license, they could just turn off PRs. Or if it's "source available", same story.

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#150

Post by chrisseaton »

turbinerneiter wrote: post #140
maccard wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are dozens of edge cases that you can argue; is redistribution allowed, is attribution required, etc. - open source is a blanket statement and is perfectly suitable as a term IMO.

Open source is a well defined term that means a very specific thing. The definition is exactly 1 sentence long. It's not a blanket term at all. Something is Open Sources if the code is published under a license that grants the user the right to study, change and redistribute to anyone and for any purpose. There is other similar things, like source available, or stricter subsets like Free Software. And there is many t…

> Something is Open Sources if the code is published under a license that grants the user the right to study, change and redistribute to anyone and for any purpose.

That's how some people define open source. Other people use it to mean being able to see the source.

Post reply on HN