Wolfram isn't open source because Wolfram (the man) is an ego maniac and a control freak. This isn't an adhominem - some men are just that way.
Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)
121–130 of 316 posts
Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
>but the existence of large corporate ones like Chrome, Android, .net, VS Code, Tensorflow and lots more prove that exerting tight central control while being fully open source is very much possible. All of your examples are subsidized by a parent corporate sponsor that makes billions from something else . Chrome can be "free as in beer" and Chromium source can be "free as in libre" because Google/Alphabet make billi…
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.
Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)
#123at this point the ecological niche of open source computation / algorithmic stacks is so well occupied that even if wolfram were to open source their code (as an attempt to remain relevant?), it is unlikely it would change much in the landscape?
Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)
#124Most of their points are valid for community driven open source projects but the existence of large corporate ones like Chrome, Android, .net, VS Code, Tensorflow and lots more prove that exerting tight central control while being fully open source is very much possible.
>but the existence of large corporate ones like Chrome, Android, .net, VS Code, Tensorflow and lots more prove that exerting tight central control while being fully open source is very much possible. All of your examples are subsidized by a parent corporate sponsor that makes billions from something else . Chrome can be "free as in beer" and Chromium source can be "free as in libre" because Google/Alphabet make billi…
> Wolfram doesn't have another product that rakes in billions such that any licensing income loss from hypothetically open sourcing Mathematica would be an insignificant rounding error.
Right - and _that_ is what this post should say, not that it's not possible to have a centralized model of development.
Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)
#125Most of their points are valid for community driven open source projects but the existence of large corporate ones like Chrome, Android, .net, VS Code, Tensorflow and lots more prove that exerting tight central control while being fully open source is very much possible.
That's the thing, though, you can make money with open source software but only if your business model is not based on selling software. There are some companies for whom dual licensing work (e.g. AdaCore) but these are really the exception. Generally, selling open source software does not work, and not everybody wants to primarily sell server space ("web app" subscriptions), maintenance, troubleshooting and other developer services, SaS, integrated hardware+software solutions, printed documentation, etc. Some people want to sell the software they make without being an employee or contractor or billing for something else than the software.
I believe there is a place for proprietary software. My personal solution is to do both, sell proprietary software and publish some of the libraries involved in it as open source.
Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)
#126Wolfram isn't open source because Wolfram (the man) is an ego maniac and a control freak. This isn't an adhominem - some men are just that way.
is he the guy who wrote a book to explain everything?
Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)
#127Honestly I feel like Mathematica is one of the better arguments for the quality of proprietary software. After spending time using it, reading their documentation, and interacting with their support staff, its downright painful by comparison using the free alternatives.
Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)
#128Their more recent post titled "Six Reasons Why the Wolfram Language Is (Like) Open Source"[1] is even more cringey.
Is this directed to managers who need to link to a reasoning against other managers making the claim for open-source alternatives? If so, this assumes those managers aren't that competent, which is insultiong at best.
1: https://blog.wolfram.com/2021/11/30/six-reasons-why-the-wolf...
Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think they're wrong. Open source does not work with product management. There will always be friction with what is on the roadmap vs what the community wants to add. Additionally, if Wolfram wants to monetize it somehow, they have to own supporting it--including the contributions that they don't necessarily want. If they anger the community, then the community forks the project and Wolfram loses complete cont…
Huh? Open source absolutely works with product management, their are tons of companies doing this today. OSS is a great way to market and up sell to SaaS
But then companies that make their money by upselling to SaaS really don't like it when Amazon comes along, takes the software, and undercuts them in the cloud. The company then scrambles to change their license to disallow that.
Wolfram in that sense is just being honest about their motivations by having it be proprietary from the get-go.
Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are arguing it does have impact on that. The company that created Java went out of business and was sold to Oracle for a fraction of its original worth. So Java was a business failure -- or at least I'd be interested to see someone defend Java as a business success. So I think it's realistic to at least engage with their argument seriously rather than dismiss it. The argument is that open source licenses are inc…
You've made the mistake of expressing an unpopular opinion, so you're getting down voted. I strongly dislike proprietary software, but you raise valid concerns that should be considered instead of being downvoted into silence. (edit: at the time I wrote this comment, the parent appeared to be headed for oblivion, happily that appears to have improved) I don't know that open sourcing Java killed Sun. More likely it wa…
> You've made the mistake of expressing an unpopular opinion, so you're getting down voted.
It's never worth saying this on HN. "downvoted" has temporal dependence, and so right now, for example, the comment you're replying to is not at net-negative. Just comment on what they said, not on how other HN readers are voting what they said.