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

Open Source (Almost) Everything

tom.preston-werner.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 85 posts

Re: Open Source (Almost) Everything

#71

Post by bh42222 »

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #66
sogrady wrote: post #43

This is another datapoint that generational attitudes towards the value of software have shifted. In the early days of software, it was an afterthought: what made it possible for IBM and others to sell the more valuable hardware asset. Microsoft (founded 1975) perceived the economic opportunity attached to volume distribution of user facing machines, and helped usher in an age where the value shifted from the hardwar…

> Instead, they leveraged open source and commodity hardware to control their costs and were able to scale more effectively than existing search alternatives. I would propose a caveat that Google's initial strength wasn't merely that it scaled better but that it used a search algorithm that produced better results . As Tom Preston-Werner argues, Google jealously guards their PageRank algorithm because it "represents…

Google jealously guards their PageRank algorithm because it "represents core business value".

Given how popular Google bombing has been over the years, and SEO now, can PageRank's functioning still be considered "secret"?

Re: Open Source (Almost) Everything

#72

Post by sogrady »

jordanlev wrote: post #56
sogrady wrote: post #43

This is another datapoint that generational attitudes towards the value of software have shifted. In the early days of software, it was an afterthought: what made it possible for IBM and others to sell the more valuable hardware asset. Microsoft (founded 1975) perceived the economic opportunity attached to volume distribution of user facing machines, and helped usher in an age where the value shifted from the hardwar…

Very insightful. Reminds me of a talk I saw Tim O'Reilly give at OSCON back in the day, basically about this same concept. He described it as "moving up the stack", with each successive phase commoditizing the thing beneath it (hardware at the bottom, then software, then services). Here's a link to his writeup of the concept (although it's kind of dry -- I remember the presentation itself having more pictures and bei…

"I wonder what's going to sit above "services" in the next phase?"

IMO, and I suspect Tim's as well given his "data is the Intel inside" comments, data will be the next major revenue stream. Consider that open source software generally excels at distribution, but is poor at customer conversion.

Open source vendors would be wise to gradually de-emphasize customer conversion mechanisms such as open core or hybrid source in favor of maximizing usage and thus the size of the dataset they may generate. This data can then be analyzed and sold to customers as analytics or to third parties interested in broader trend data.

See Spiceworks, Sonatype Insights etc as indications of where this market will go.

Re: Open Source (Almost) Everything

#73

Post by jordanlev »

bh42222 wrote: post #71
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Instead, they leveraged open source and commodity hardware to control their costs and were able to scale more effectively than existing search alternatives. I would propose a caveat that Google's initial strength wasn't merely that it scaled better but that it used a search algorithm that produced better results . As Tom Preston-Werner argues, Google jealously guards their PageRank algorithm because it "represents…

Google jealously guards their PageRank algorithm because it "represents core business value". Given how popular Google bombing has been over the years, and SEO now, can PageRank's functioning still be considered "secret"?

I believe you are missing the point of the argument. Substitute "PageRank algorithm" with "whatever method(s) they are currently using to rank pages" as it is always changing in response to people who are gaming the system.

Re: Open Source (Almost) Everything

#74

Post by jordanlev »

sogrady wrote: post #72
jordanlev wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very insightful. Reminds me of a talk I saw Tim O'Reilly give at OSCON back in the day, basically about this same concept. He described it as "moving up the stack", with each successive phase commoditizing the thing beneath it (hardware at the bottom, then software, then services). Here's a link to his writeup of the concept (although it's kind of dry -- I remember the presentation itself having more pictures and bei…

"I wonder what's going to sit above "services" in the next phase?" IMO, and I suspect Tim's as well given his "data is the Intel inside" comments, data will be the next major revenue stream. Consider that open source software generally excels at distribution, but is poor at customer conversion. Open source vendors would be wise to gradually de-emphasize customer conversion mechanisms such as open core or hybrid sourc…

Brilliant! This makes a lot of sense. Interestingly, though, I see data as working in tandem with services (as the services are the ones that would be able to make use of the data) as opposed to the data commoditizing the services. I guess that's okay -- this theory is just a model, not immutable laws of physics :)

EDIT: Okay, I just looked at those two companies, and I totally get it -- they commoditize the services by making the service free (which they can do because they're making money off the data they gather from the free users). Consider my mind blown.

Re: Open Source (Almost) Everything

#75

Post by StatHacking »

sjs wrote: post #70
__david__ wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So somebody who is making a proprietary thing is not restricting anyone by using an MIT or BSD licensed component. Of course you are! You are restricting your customers' freedom. The idea of the GPL is bigger than just giving you, a software developer, freedom to use it. The GPL ensures that your final end user also had all the freedoms that the you, the middle man, had. They can stand on the shoulders of you, who…

Agree to disagree then. The alternative to Windows and OS X is not GPL-licensed Windows and GPL-licensed OS X, it's no Windows and no OS X, and we still have BSDs, Linux, and other open source systems in the ecosystem. Nobody who wants an open source OS has been restricted, and those who want a different experience than open source provides have the freedom to choose a proprietary OS. If someone wants an open source…

> In the real world where not everyone is a programmer people don't feel restricted by proprietary software. Only in some hypothetical ivory tower manned by RMS are non-developers restricted by proprietary things.

This is irrespective and has nothing to do with the point. I can figure out tons of adjectives to """describe""" you. Also, I don't know why people think their reality is "the real world" and extrapolates it to others' "real worlds".

It is not about being a dev or not, it's about a system which someone relies on (even a society with Google) and ensuring its continuity and the best for all. If you ensure it, people will recognize your work and the money will come.

> While writing that list of open source software I use, I realized that only Emacs and GCC are GPL. Why is it that the most popular open source software is not GPL licensed? If the GPL encourages and fosters collaboration why is the MIT, BSD, and MPL licensed software more active and popular? It almost seems as if removing the restrictions from the GPL encourages collaboration. The Linux kernel is a notable exception, so I'm not saying this is 100% true, but the evidence seems to support it in many cases.

A software is "good" independent of its license. Licenses don't fix bugs. If you measure by adoption, then you should conclude that Visual Studio is what has encouraged most of the software developing in the past - and I think it's true, but hasn't to do with licensing and business models.

Your evidence supports that many licenses are being used, and that's a good thing. If you want to do things because many people does them, then you should adopt the Chinese culture. We have a phrase here: "Eat Shit: Trillions of flies can't be wrong." (this is not about Chinesse culture, they have outstanding good things and others not so good).

It took about 10 years to the industry to understand that they could earn money with open source software. It was very hard to try to explain someone that he could do better with a different model. Now that the industry has "internalize" it, everybody loves open source. AGPL is the next step: there is room for improvement and you will probably (IMO) do better with a more sustainable model.

Re: Open Source (Almost) Everything

#76

Post by fadisinger »

StatHacking wrote: post #31

Tom, I agree with everything but the "core business" stuff and the MIT License. The same principles apply to your core business - independent of what it is (not only GitHub). By opensourcing all of your business, you will gain all the synergy you mentioned (i.e. libgit2) within your core . Your competitors will benefit from it, but they won't be a challenge to you as long as they don't have the passion and insights f…

Thks 4 that contribution Rodriguo, I think the same but wouldn't have put it best!

Re: Open Source (Almost) Everything

#77

Post by fadisinger »

StatHacking wrote: post #31

Tom, I agree with everything but the "core business" stuff and the MIT License. The same principles apply to your core business - independent of what it is (not only GitHub). By opensourcing all of your business, you will gain all the synergy you mentioned (i.e. libgit2) within your core . Your competitors will benefit from it, but they won't be a challenge to you as long as they don't have the passion and insights f…

Thks 4 that contribution Rodriguo, I think the same but wouldn't have put it best!

Fadi from Silverpeas

www.silverpeas.org (GNU GPL 3)

Re: Open Source (Almost) Everything

#78

Post by sogrady »

jordanlev wrote: post #74
sogrady wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I wonder what's going to sit above "services" in the next phase?" IMO, and I suspect Tim's as well given his "data is the Intel inside" comments, data will be the next major revenue stream. Consider that open source software generally excels at distribution, but is poor at customer conversion. Open source vendors would be wise to gradually de-emphasize customer conversion mechanisms such as open core or hybrid sourc…

Brilliant! This makes a lot of sense. Interestingly, though, I see data as working in tandem with services (as the services are the ones that would be able to make use of the data) as opposed to the data commoditizing the services. I guess that's okay -- this theory is just a model, not immutable laws of physics :) EDIT: Okay, I just looked at those two companies, and I totally get it -- they commoditize the services…

I talked about this at OSBC, in case you (or anyone else) is interested. It's basically the verbose version of the comment above.

http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2011/05/24/the-age-of-data/

Re: Open Source (Almost) Everything

#79

Post by dhs »

tptacek wrote: post #29
true_religion wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is forced attribution and the fact that in some countries putting work under the public domain doesn't mean you give up a lot of rights to it. You need to have a specifically liberal licence in order to do that.

This is probably a myth. http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html

At least in Germany, as an artist, the only way to transfer your "Urheberrecht" to somebody else is to die. See §29 of the "Urheberrechtsgesetz" (copyright law) [1]:

"Das Urheberrecht ist nicht übertragbar, es sei denn, es wird in Erfüllung einer Verfügung von Todes wegen oder an Miterben im Wege der Erbauseinandersetzung übertragen."

(Translation: "Copyright is not transferable, unless it is transferred in execution of a testamentary disposition or to coheirs in the way of partition of an estate.")

[1] http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/BJNR012730965.html#BJ...

Re: Open Source (Almost) Everything

#80

Post by king_magic »

I don't necessarily agree with the author that "it is the right thing to do". He may believe we are morally obligated to give back to the community, and that is his belief, and that's fine, but I do not share his belief.

I'll contribute back to the community happily. I do so because I want to. But I do not feel that I am morally obligated to do so. I'm sorry, I simply don't.

The author makes the point that one should give back, for example, simply because one "used the internet". It is one thing to say that you should open source your code and give it back to the community if it is derived in some way from another open source project. It is quite another to say that just because you use open source, you are now morally obligated to give back to the community.

All of you out there using an Android phone - do you feel morally obligated to open source your work simply because you use a phone that is built predominantly on open source code?

Post reply on HN