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

221–230 of 316 posts

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

#221

Post by rpdillon »

chrisseaton wrote: post #160
turbinerneiter wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are wrong. The term for that is source available. There is absolutely no reason to have any doubt about the true meaning of the term when this definition is on every search result on Googles first page, in Wikipedia, when it's that name of a non-profit that defines it like that and when the page that literally is called opensource.org defines it like that.

Having a domain name doesn’t mean you own a term.

A term with no agreed meaning has limited utility. We have an official definition. I don't understand how the community benefits from making the definition more ambiguous and murky. Is there a group that's heavily invested conflating open source with source-available? I just don't understand who wins in that scenario.

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

#222

Post by rpdillon »

Shikadi wrote: post #163
FemmeAndroid wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve got to agree with you here. While I personally agree with the people commenting about open source being about the license rather than governance, I do not think that was always as widely accepted as it currently is in this comments section. I recall seeing a lot of hostility from people in the past about governance of a licensed project not being in line with ‘open source values,’ for example.

"Open source values" is just a covert way of saying "RMS values"

I don't think that's correct. Open Source as a term was created in reaction to Free Software, which is RMS's thing. See: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

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

#223

Post by bgandrew »

User23 wrote: post #4

I understand Mr. Wolfram's decision to be a billionaire with a small army of brilliant persons at his beck and call. I also understand his desire to keep complete control of what he's built. All that being said, I sincerely hope he makes provisions to make his work Free at some point after his death. Because, if he doesn't, lacking his admittedly ingenius leadership, it will be lost to obscurity at best. That would b…

don't be too negative, there are lots of alternatives. humanity will lose almost nothing if wolfram cease to exists.

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

#224

Post by phkahler »

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.

>> Most of these are about wanting control over the design of the software

As an open source maintainer, the part that stood out to me was all the stuff nobody really wants to do. For example, look how long it took GIMP to switch to GTK3. In a paid corporate environment switches like that are scheduled, assigned, and implemented.

I'm very fortunate to work on a project (solvespace) that has members who tend toward different specialties - build system, macOS, Windows, C++ modernization, algorithms & math. And yet I don't get to assign tasks and expect results because we are all volunteers. If we were all paid things could go way faster.

Wolfram has been going fast for decades and would not work as OSS. The best we have in OSS is Octave, Maxima, and Julia, but none of those come close.

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

#225

Post by fsflover »

chrisseaton wrote: post #150
turbinerneiter wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

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

#226

Post by fsflover »

kube-system wrote: post #218
civilized wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is zero chance that Wolfram's products would be "stolen" in this way. No one is interested in developing them but Stephen Wolfram.

I’m sure some cloud provider would love to slap wolfram features on to their existing service offerings as a value-add.

How about using AGPLv3?

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

#228

Post by jasode »

lobocinza wrote: post #219
jasode wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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? [...] how releasing your source lead to bad design? The way to interpret his argument is to imagine an alternate past history where Mathematica was open source from the beginning and how that would have lead to an inferior product. He wrote: >[...] I think that it would…

Did any of these open-source projects that lag behind had a budget that at least was of the same order of magnitude of their proprietary counterparts? I don't think so. OBS is another counterexample that is heavy on GUI and absolutely superior to similar solutions (where they don't just fork it and hide it). Proprietary and open-source modes share the same challenges. 1. Developers need incentives and it has to be su…

>Did any of these open-source projects that lag behind had a budget that at least was of the same order of magnitude of their proprietary counterparts? I don't think so.

No they didn't and that's why I put those lagging open-source projects as examples to make readers imagine that an alternate-history-open-source Mathematica may have lagged behind like them too.

I think you lost track of the argument put forth by this thread's essay from Jon McLoone of Wolfram. Your emphasis about "no big budget" actually supports his listed benefits of the paid model in: https://blog.wolfram.com/2019/04/02/why-wolfram-tech-isnt-op...

Again, when he wrote : >[...] I think that it would not have been possible to create the Wolfram technology stack using a free and open-source model.

... he's saying you wouldn't have the comprehensive Mathematica product we see today with the open source model. Perhaps the histories of how GIMP/OpenCAD/SageMath evolved supports his point that Mathematica was correct in not choosing their open-source model?

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

#230

Post by mountainriver »

detaro wrote: post #122
mountainriver wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a bunch of smaller companies that open source a community edition and upsell to SaaS. Confluent and elasticsearch are the first that come to mind

It's telling that one of your examples is one that took the step to relicense their product under a not-open-source license.

Take a look at the CNCF, all of those products are open source and many of them are lucrative.

Elasticsearch is still open source they just wanted to buck companies like Amazon from taking advantage of them, which is fine by me

Post reply on HN