I don't blame the big corps like IBM (disclaimer: I work there, I don't speak for them) and Microsoft and Google. I really blame investors who are looking to get their money back. When they force an IPO but there's no business model to sustain the company, this is what happens. CEOs resort to developer-hostile actions which kills off the community and generates ill-will towards the company. People here shit on "lifestyle companies" but IMO that's the best model for sustainablility and developer communities (if that's what you're into).
Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead
21–30 of 164 posts
Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead
#22Products aren't projects, which has confused people for decades.
If open source products retreating from some of the "freedom" elements bothers you, then you should be focusing your ire on the megacorporations and overfunded startups who simply refuse to contribute to the financial viability of the products that sustain them.
For some reason "we" celebrate the exploitative, though, so I guess that's out.
Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead
#23If you can't capture sufficient value, you're not going to be able to make a business around it. The problem isn't value creation, which the OSS model does do. The problem is value capture. That's why so many people go around saying "We need to pay X more". That's a sign that creation and capture have a gap.
You'll see that with traditional open-source. With companies that attempt to capture the value, your customers will always hate you unless you're careful.
Of course using the Elastic license family from the beginning is one way there. The Llama license family is another way. But perhaps my favourite observed thing has to be Kong's licensing: the base thing is Apache 2.0 but when you sign a contract with them, they'll give you access to the Enterprise plugins and you can edit their source. I loved working with them.
They seem to have done a good job with value capture. I think they're leaving a lot on the table, but there is significant path dependence on what they've done, so they don't have the option any more. But good job.
Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead
#24Always remember: It's either AGPLv3 or proprietary all rights reserved. Anything else means you're giving your labor away for free to the beggar barons. Biggest wealth transfer in history, from developers and straight into the pockets of billionaires. It's just irrational. Also remember: Whoever owns the copyright gets to do whatever they want. The licensing security of free software, defined here as the likelihood o…
Maybe I like writing software that I don't bother to monetize but allows anyone who wants to come along and use it to eat to do so.
Don't give things away if you care about what happens to them afterwards. So many people completely misunderstand what open source is about.
Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead
#25> By working on a project with a CLA, where you sign away your code, you're giving carte blanche for the company to take away your freedom to use their software. Ok it's been a while so I don't remember the details or how it played out, but when Linux introduced a CoC, there were people who contributed to the kernel in the past that threatened to withdraw their code from the kernel, which would've been a nightmare to…
I think that the developer can demand a withdrawal of their contribution, though I don't know what happens to the code that's already published under a FOSS license. Regardless, many projects including the Linux kernel require the developer to sign off their contributions under the terms of the 'developer certificate of origin' [1]. While the developer retains the copyright to the contribution under DCO, they acknowledge that it will be distributed in perpetuity under the original license. So, retracting the contribution may not be an option.
Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you do actual open source and your product is any good, somebody else is just going to repackage it and sell it, either as SAAS/IAAS or as a boxed product. So why not get there first? It's depressing. That's been my experience every time I gave code away, at least. Somebody else made money off it.
It's why things like Captura no longer exist. You make something fantastic with an open source license, someone else renames it and sells it in app stores, and the people running the app stores go "the license allowed for this, we see nothing wrong". It's well past time for getting rid of licenses that say "you can do what you like with this software", and replace them with licenses that allows you to sell as long as…
The idea that you just mark your work as MIT/GPL/CC0 may have made open source more popular, but it also ruins lives when that thing you worked on for years and never made you anything makes a random drive-by asshole more than your annual salary.
[Citation Needed] (and a couple of questions)
1. How has this ruined someone's life? That mechanism isn't easy for me to see.
2. If the license allowed for it, why should any one see something wrong there?
3. Aren't you putting short shrift on the effort it takes to productize something?
Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you do actual open source and your product is any good, somebody else is just going to repackage it and sell it, either as SAAS/IAAS or as a boxed product. So why not get there first? It's depressing. That's been my experience every time I gave code away, at least. Somebody else made money off it.
It's why things like Captura no longer exist. You make something fantastic with an open source license, someone else renames it and sells it in app stores, and the people running the app stores go "the license allowed for this, we see nothing wrong". It's well past time for getting rid of licenses that say "you can do what you like with this software", and replace them with licenses that allows you to sell as long as…
> Why I (A/L)GPL
https://web.archive.org/web/20120620103603/http://zedshaw.co...
> I want people to appreciate the work I’ve done and the value of what I’ve made.
> Not pass on by waving “sucker” as they drive their fancy cars.
Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead
#28Source available from the beginning is ethical. Open source that becomes something else is shady. I am glad they tried. I know there's lots of cynical stuff on the internet, but realistically the open source progress on stuff like Terraform or similar wouldn't have happened if these companies didn't try an alternative. I'm not sure what people want these companies to do. If there's no money, if the idea didn't work,…
> Source available from the beginning is ethical. Not to rms.
[flagged]
Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead
#29[deleted]
Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you do actual open source and your product is any good, somebody else is just going to repackage it and sell it, either as SAAS/IAAS or as a boxed product. So why not get there first? It's depressing. That's been my experience every time I gave code away, at least. Somebody else made money off it.
That’s guaranteed to happen. Even beyond that, how are developers going to earn a living with FOSS, at least with open licensing? We have seen maintainers burnt out. It takes work to write code.
I make substantial income by selling copies of my AGPLv3-licensed program for $12/ea.