I wonder how one would view late 90s gcc in this light? Single vendor compiler that made everybody so mad they finally forked it and basically restarted with a new team.
Single vendor is the new proprietary
31–40 of 98 posts
Re: Single vendor is the new proprietary
#32> You should be on board if you want Open Source to win against proprietary software. But those companies are still doing what is, essentially, proprietary software: like the proprietary software companies of the 80s, they very much consider the software being produced as their exclusive property. They still intend to capture all the value that derives from it. And thanks to copyright aggregation or permissive licens…
Wrt winning: Open is the least worst way of doing things.
With the xz kerfuffle people say "aha! So much for your security now!" when the alternative is someone tampering with code on an unsecured ftp serve i.e. it's the devil you can see
Re: Single vendor is the new proprietary
#33> You should be on board if you want Open Source to win against proprietary software. But those companies are still doing what is, essentially, proprietary software: like the proprietary software companies of the 80s, they very much consider the software being produced as their exclusive property. They still intend to capture all the value that derives from it. And thanks to copyright aggregation or permissive licens…
For me, neither side needs to 'win' but people should understand the facts on ground when they adopt a project for their needs. "Open Source" isn't the full story, you need to consider the motivations or potential motivations of a project's backers. I think there's a real grievance to be had by projects that were formerly open source, solicited contributions from non-paid volunteers, and then change licensing models.…
> I think there's a real grievance to be had by projects that were formerly open source, solicited contributions from non-paid volunteers, and then change licensing models.
It's definitely possible to take advantage of volunteerism, but in this case I don't see the real issue. The project remains just as open as it ever was, even upon licence change. It can be forked, and the project might change name, but that's all. It's not the nicest outcome, but it's the same as if a sole owner just decides to stop working on a project. The only thing to do is fork and move on.
Re: Single vendor is the new proprietary
#34The article itself is rather, hmm... Melodramatic? Not sure that's the right word, but it is close. That said, the overall idea that "open source" projects that are controlled by a single vendor have problems is true.
I think that having a for-profit company controlling an open source project is a major conflict of interest. Open source does not always result in profit. Often the opposite. And I think we've seen the results of that with all the different open source projects that have re-licensed into pretend open source licenses.
There are ways to run open source projects that support both the open source culture, and allow for for-profit companies to make a profit. But most of those ways mean allowing competition. Which is where the single vendor project conflict of interest becomes apparent. Yeah, big tech will leech off any successful project. Yes, that means less money for the "single vendor". Yes, that is not fair. But I'd say re-licensing is worse than leeching, so...
The other side effect of "single vendor" I've run into a lot, is simply that their paid options are always priced for organizations with very deep pockets. So the smaller orgs (and individual developers) that jumped on the bandwagon early because the project was open source (and they actually could jump on the bandwagon), have no chance at supporting the project. And end up have to find something else because the project stops supporting open source.
Re: Single vendor is the new proprietary
#35[deleted]
Re: Single vendor is the new proprietary
#36> You should be on board if you want Open Source to win against proprietary software. But those companies are still doing what is, essentially, proprietary software: like the proprietary software companies of the 80s, they very much consider the software being produced as their exclusive property. They still intend to capture all the value that derives from it. And thanks to copyright aggregation or permissive licens…
For me, neither side needs to 'win' but people should understand the facts on ground when they adopt a project for their needs. "Open Source" isn't the full story, you need to consider the motivations or potential motivations of a project's backers. I think there's a real grievance to be had by projects that were formerly open source, solicited contributions from non-paid volunteers, and then change licensing models.…
> I think there's a real grievance to be had by projects that were formerly open source, solicited contributions from non-paid volunteers, and then change licensing models.
I think that's the crux of the frustration and fair. But at the same time, the previous version before the license change can still be forked/the contributions are intact so is there a tangible loss or just an emotional one?
Re: Single vendor is the new proprietary
#37The article itself is rather, hmm... Melodramatic? Not sure that's the right word, but it is close. That said, the overall idea that "open source" projects that are controlled by a single vendor have problems is true. I think that having a for-profit company controlling an open source project is a major conflict of interest. Open source does not always result in profit. Often the opposite. And I think we've seen the…
I don't see how it's a conflict of interest. The primary benefit of open source is that you can run and modify it yourself if you need to. This benefit is still there if there is a single vendor behind the project.
The risk of a single vendor project is that it's less likely to be supported in the long run. This isn't a conflict of interest though.
Re: Single vendor is the new proprietary
#38> You should be on board if you want Open Source to win against proprietary software. But those companies are still doing what is, essentially, proprietary software: like the proprietary software companies of the 80s, they very much consider the software being produced as their exclusive property. They still intend to capture all the value that derives from it. And thanks to copyright aggregation or permissive licens…
> re: things being produced as their exclusive property, what is the issue with this? They did the work to make the thing, therefore it's their property (unless they choose to release it otherwise).
the issue is that they also want the benefit of not being ignored, so they claim to be less proprietary than they actually are while trying to build mindshare
Re: Single vendor is the new proprietary
#39> On one axis, the license used is either Open Source (as defined by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), which I would summarize as coming with all freedoms necessary to enable the permissionless innovation I mentioned earlier) or it’s not. On the other axis is the development model: it’s either developed as a commons, by a community working in open collaboration, or it’s developed (and ultimately owned) by a single entity.
Is SQLite "the new proprietary"? It seems to fit the description perfectly: very permissive license, very closed development process.
Re: Single vendor is the new proprietary
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The free software movement is for sure older than that but I can't find any verifiable source of "open source" being used in its current form earlier than the 90's.
No, because it's a name that was made up then to try to rebrand something that had already existed for decades, but which has a name that those guys didn't like.