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

191–200 of 316 posts

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

#191

Post by kube-system »

rp1 wrote: post #6

Almost none of the reasons have anything to do with releasing the source. You can release the source but still maintain central control. They shouldn’t even have posted this. Obviously they want to make money from their products, and that’s fine.

> You can release the source but still maintain central control.

Until someone with a larger budget than you forks it and uses their immense resources to force you out of the market. Then you liquidate your company and someone else gets the rights to maintain your fork.

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

#192

Post by TAForObvReasons »

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…

You are conflating "open source" with "open contribution". https://github.com/jgraph/drawio#open-source-not-open-contri... explains it neatly:

> Similar to SQLite, diagrams.net is open source but closed to contributions.

> The level of complexity of this project means that even simple changes can break a lot of other moving parts. The amount of testing required is far more than it first seems. If we were to receive a PR, we'd have to basically throw it away and write it how we want it to be implemented.

> We are grateful for community involvement, bug reports, & feature requests. We do not wish to come off as anything but welcoming, however, we've made the decision to keep this project closed to contributions for the long term viability of the project.

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

#193

Post by jdauriemma »

candiddevmike wrote: post #153
sodality2 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Then the community forks the OSS project and you lose control/struggle to maintain parity/mindshare. Gogs/Gitea, VIM/Neovim, Bitwarden/Vaultwarden... The ones that succeed keep the community happy and either focus on adding value on top (open core, don't give away the special sauce) or deliver half assed products (package up the community leftovers and hope support contracts/services fill in the gaps).

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t there open source licenses that don’t permit unauthorized distribution? If so, couldn’t they safely release the source code without worrying about competition from forks?

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

#194

Post by analog31 »

bborud wrote: post #189
analog31 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think to make it mainstream would require making it different. The number of people who actually have a use for Mathematica is pretty small. Very few people understand both math and programming. Most people who can program are already employed as programmers. In a larger organization, rather than buying 10 licenses for 200 bucks each, it's better to buy 1 license for 2000 bucks and have everybody bring their math w…

Well, let's for arguments sake consider the most important demographic in my mind: me :-). (That's what most people do anyway). Joking aside. I'd love to make Mathematica part of my toolbox, but the steep pricing makes me think about all the other software I pay license fees on that I depend on, and I need another software expense like I need a third buttock. If it wasn't a recurring license, or a recurring license a…

Indeed, in my case, I've got my basic toolchain installed on more than a half dozen computers. At work, I do hardware related R&D, so I need my tools at multiple workstations in the lab. At home, a work-at-home computer and a personal computer.

If I share something, my victims need to install their own copy of the tools.

Then there's the whole world of code running on microcontrollers, which is how I prototype hardware gadgets, also in multiple locations.

There is one piece of domain specific software that I use, and that is tied to a single computer, but I only use it sporadically when I need to do that particular kind of design work.

I appreciate Wolfram's vision for a universal computing platform, but aside from the problem of getting everybody to agree on what that should look like, it's not a realistic dream unless it addresses things like economics and logistics.

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

#196

Post by nayuki »

streamofdigits wrote: post #126
k1ll3r wrote: post #121

Wolfram isn't open source because Wolfram (the man) is an ego maniac and a control freak. This isn't an adhominem - some men are just that way.

is he the guy who wrote a book to explain everything ?

Yes, in "A New Kind of Science" (2002) he uses his cellular automata theory as the basis of explaining all of physics and computation. Very narcissistic if you ask me. Not to mention that it's not a good mathematical model and doesn't really improve on the state of the art.

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

#197

Post by spacechild1 »

michalhosna wrote: post #179
derefr wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Counter example: SQLite

I think you missed the "or" in the parent post. SQLite is closed for contributions, but it's still open source in the sense that anyone can take the source code, make changes and use it in their own projects. From the SQLite website:

> SQLite source code is in the public-domain and is free to everyone to use for any purpose.

That being said, I agree with your sibling poster that "open contribution" is not a requirement for "open source".

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

#198

Post by lousyd »

michalhosna wrote: post #179
derefr wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Counter example: SQLite

And draw.io, I recently learned. "You can have the source, but we're not interested in your opinions about it, tyvm."

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

#199

Post by leephillips »

cycomanic wrote: post #106
rp1 wrote: post #6

Almost none of the reasons have anything to do with releasing the source. You can release the source but still maintain central control. They shouldn’t even have posted this. Obviously they want to make money from their products, and that’s fine.

The irony certainly is that wolfram uses open source libraries (and there were some twitter threads that they might be aying a bit fast and loose with the acknowledgement of LGPL licenses)

Indeed: https://twitter.com/hypergeometer/status/1470505437934067725
Post reply on HN