Single vendor is the new proprietary
opensource.net
Single vendor is the new proprietary
1–10 of 98 posts
Re: Single vendor is the new proprietary
#2The author completely neglects the "non-open-source/open collaboration" quadrant as if it didn't exist. Best examples are games with easily accessible modding communities. While development is centralised and you definitely don't have any kind of open source licence, collaboration is generally open in terms of releasing mods to the game.
They also bash the Commons Clause purely using the definition (zero mention on why they think the restrictions are bad, it's just handled with "not OSI" and that's it)
Of course this position can be understood better when you look at who are sponsoring this organisation. (in a short way, opensource.net is an OSI front, and OSI is lobbied heavily by the software industry)
Re: Single vendor is the new proprietary
#3The author completely neglects the "non-open-source/open collaboration" quadrant as if it didn't exist. Best examples are games with easily accessible modding communities. While development is centralised and you definitely don't have any kind of open source licence, collaboration is generally open in terms of releasing mods to the game. They also bash the Commons Clause purely using the definition (zero mention on w…
OSI isn't the software industry. It's sponsored by Google, amazon then ms via github in order of sponsor donations. It's financed by the hyperscalars. https://opensource.org/sponsors
Re: Single vendor is the new proprietary
#4The author completely neglects the "non-open-source/open collaboration" quadrant as if it didn't exist. Best examples are games with easily accessible modding communities. While development is centralised and you definitely don't have any kind of open source licence, collaboration is generally open in terms of releasing mods to the game. They also bash the Commons Clause purely using the definition (zero mention on w…
Note that it's subscription/service games that often have the most contentious relation with their modding scenes, as they tend to see the mods more as competition. On the other hand, people are generally more willing to develop mods for software sold with perpetual licenses, as the chances of no longer having access to the thing you are supporting is much lower than with e.g. $XXXXX/month cloud services.
Re: Single vendor is the new proprietary
#5The author completely neglects the "non-open-source/open collaboration" quadrant as if it didn't exist. Best examples are games with easily accessible modding communities. While development is centralised and you definitely don't have any kind of open source licence, collaboration is generally open in terms of releasing mods to the game. They also bash the Commons Clause purely using the definition (zero mention on w…
Note that it's subscription/service games that often have the most contentious relation with their modding scenes, as they tend to see the mods more as competition. On the other hand, people are generally more willing to develop mods for software sold with perpetual licenses, as the chances of no longer having access to the thing you are supporting is much lower than with e.g. $XXXXX/month cloud services.
Very good point, not only in live service games... I've seen a thing or two and it's usually obvious how developers treat the modding community. In some games they are viewed as an asset (people mod my game, they make it different, this attracts more people to buy my game) and in other games, modders are the scum who always want to cheat/commit "fraud" by not wanting to buy all the microtransaction slop/etc.
Re: Single vendor is the new proprietary
#6If it is, then Open Source has won, right? And we can disband the OSI, right?
I suspect that's not the message they intended to send.
(I read the article, btw.)
As the author of source available software, this article merely seems to be screeching from big players that they can't exploit some software anymore.
Re: Single vendor is the new proprietary
#7If it is, then Open Source has won, right? And we can disband the OSI, right? I suspect that's not the message they intended to send. (I read the article, btw.) As the author of source available software, this article merely seems to be screeching from big players that they can't exploit some software anymore.
I'm not following; how does an onslaught of fake FOSS mean FOSS has won? If anything it sounds like it needs more defending than ever.
Re: Single vendor is the new proprietary
#8If it is, then Open Source has won, right? And we can disband the OSI, right? I suspect that's not the message they intended to send. (I read the article, btw.) As the author of source available software, this article merely seems to be screeching from big players that they can't exploit some software anymore.
I thought the article was arguing that say Redis was while “open” the codebase is owned by one company and hence that’s no different to proprietary.
To which I say, yeah we know.
I mean I can fork Linux kernel tonight and announce my big new plans, and there will be zero installs. Big FOSS software is there because they built a reputation of constant quality over years (as successful proprietary companies should and sometimes do)
That social capital is immensely hard to compete against (the Hashicorp forking might manage?)
And that is what “the big players” are trying to exploit - that for a decade they have led / organised / helped / whatever the development of this software and now they want to monetise
It’s also why I think the “foundation” model works surprisingly well - we can trust that to keep software going so it’s a better ask for cash (even if the support model is the “best” imo)
Re: Single vendor is the new proprietary
#9The author completely neglects the "non-open-source/open collaboration" quadrant as if it didn't exist. Best examples are games with easily accessible modding communities. While development is centralised and you definitely don't have any kind of open source licence, collaboration is generally open in terms of releasing mods to the game. They also bash the Commons Clause purely using the definition (zero mention on w…
OSI isn't the software industry. It's sponsored by Google, amazon then ms via github in order of sponsor donations. It's financed by the hyperscalars. https://opensource.org/sponsors
This is such a crazy retelling of history that it's hard to take seriously. Open Source was not some brainchild of megacorps but very much so a mission of the wider software industry to band together to have an alternative to hugely expensive proprietary software vendors -- namely Microsoft and Oracle, and to prevent people from imposing their will on users via software in a manner that users had no possible redress from.
OSI was founded by Perens and Raymond and very much represents the interests of the wider software industry. You're free to argue that at some point they have stopped in recent but Open Source has meant the same thing for going on 30 years.
Re: Single vendor is the new proprietary
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
OSI isn't the software industry. It's sponsored by Google, amazon then ms via github in order of sponsor donations. It's financed by the hyperscalars. https://opensource.org/sponsors
This is such a crazy retelling of history that it's hard to take seriously. Open Source was not some brainchild of megacorps but very much so a mission of the wider software industry to band together to have an alternative to hugely expensive proprietary software vendors -- namely Microsoft and Oracle, and to prevent people from imposing their will on users via software in a manner that users had no possible redress…
OSI is from 1998 so it’s much younger than the open source movement. BSD was approaching 20 and Linux was what 7 years old at that point?