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

“Open source” is not broken

nadh.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 259 posts

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#201

Post by atq2119 »

orblivion wrote: post #158
convolvatron wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

car insurance companies hires actuaries that correlate driving speed to payout and adjust rates accordingly. if you think that software quality and risk can be so easily quantified then you clearly dont have your hands in software.

What about insurance companies that need to predict weather disasters? Is that also more predictable than software? If it's something harder to predict, is there a way you could put error bars around it? Granted premiums could get high as a result.

The key is establishing a market for this kind of insurance policy. That can only happen if companies are made liable. That needs to happen at some point, though it's not clear how to do it without getting unpleasant unintended side effects.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#202

Post by sircastor »

darksaints wrote: post #172
twelvechairs wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In rebuttal I'll paraphrase a little from Paul Ramsey (maintainer of 20-year open source project PostGIS)[0] His basic view is that Open Source is the dominant model today, but tension comes as very little of the value produced comes back to the community that creates this value. He argues this will always be 'the bare minimum' by virtue of economics, but that if something important slows down too much someone will p…

This personally rings true for me. My company is getting literally billions of dollars worth of value from a couple of applications (one of which I created and maintain) built upon the foundation of Postgres and PostGIS. And we benefit immensely from active development of it: PostGIS version 3.1 released a new more efficient overlay algorithm which probably saves us $5k a year in compute costs alone , and untold thou…

I can’t speak to this directly, as I haven’t had to deal with this at the management level.

My thought though is that this is preventative care. This is going to the Doctor regularly so you don’t get surprised when something goes awry. Likewise, making sure the OSS project you’re totally dependent on doesn’t suffer a catastrophic failure or abandonment is a worthy investment.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#203

Post by trixie_ »

mrweasel wrote: post #40

It feels like we moved from a world where open source software was develop by a community, to one where most of us are just consumers of the code. I don't know if where actually more contributors 20 years ago, relatively speaking, but much of the code was also less complex. Open source is still remarkably successful and the only reason why the whole Log4J RCE is such a big deal, is because the library is hugely succe…

I can tell you it was exactly the same 20 years ago.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#204

Post by trixie_ »

sidlls wrote: post #32

Open source is most certainly broken, and not just due to the various financial, freedom and security issues these two articles focus on. My biggest peeve: documentation is often minimal (e.g. API docs only) or filled with useless toy examples that are effectively just rephrasing of API docs. The entire underpinning of free and open source software is silly: software in this context isn't an academic pursuit producin…

You get what you pay for. There are plenty of documented/supported libraries out there to buy in place of open source software.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#205

Post by trixie_ »

phkahler wrote: post #57

The core "problem" stems from software having zero production/replication cost, and we live in a world where nobody is used to funding development. Even software companies are charging rent for what already exists, and using some of that to develop their next version or new product. The zero cost reproduction enables the free collaboration, but doesnt fit our existing ideas around paying for things. I think that noti…

Replace 'rent' with 'support. If a commercial company builds on top of software with a license that says 'use at your own risk' then the buck stops with them.

That's why companies buy libraries from other companies that are supported - as in the liability can be passed down the line.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#206

Post by trixie_ »

Exendroinient wrote: post #119

In general, society has problems with monetization of valuable things. It's not only the case with FOSS, it's also holds true with science and a long term not quarterly counted products development. Sadly vile entertainment and advertising is perfectly monetized.

If you choose to monetize then you probably will end up accepting liability for it as well if it goes wrong. For a lot of open source developers putting a 'use at your own risk' license on the software is easier. Let another company sell/support it if they want. Or build a company around it yourself to offer support.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#207

Post by trixie_ »

bluefox wrote: post #130

Solutions involving companies paying directly to the people whose code they use miss the point. The reason is that software shared with the world is often shared out of passion and idealism. If only code that's useful to some companies is paid for, the world of free (as in beer or otherwise) software as we know and love is still unsustainable, and not just because fledgling projects tend to be inferior in many ways t…

It's easy to write code and release it with a 'use at your own risk' license on it.

Offering support and accepting liability for problems with your code isn't fun or easy.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#208

Post by trixie_ »

jbirer wrote: post #111

My philosophy (albeit it might not be shared by many) is that if you are going to do a job, either do it well and all the way through or don't do it. I see many half-assed (for the lack of a better term) open source jobs where the developers do not respond to criticism and feedback in other words than "you should be grateful we did X and Y after all", with an air of arrogance and saintliness for even doing anything.…

It's not a job, it's a hobby someone shared online with you. They owe you nothing.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#209

Post by TheCoelacanth »

trixie_ wrote: post #206
Exendroinient wrote: post #119

In general, society has problems with monetization of valuable things. It's not only the case with FOSS, it's also holds true with science and a long term not quarterly counted products development. Sadly vile entertainment and advertising is perfectly monetized.

If you choose to monetize then you probably will end up accepting liability for it as well if it goes wrong. For a lot of open source developers putting a 'use at your own risk' license on the software is easier. Let another company sell/support it if they want. Or build a company around it yourself to offer support.

I don't think that's the case at all. Most commercial software comes with a 'use at your own risk' license, or if you're really lucky, will cap liability at the amount you paid.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#210

Post by trixie_ »

jack_pp wrote: post #171

is it not possible to have a licence that says if you want to use this code to sell a service for a profit you must contact the owner and negociate a deal? this way if you are developing in the open source bubble you get to use software for free. if you want to build a service you get to test the software for free and if your company takes off then you must pay for your foundation.

It's totally possible and many unpopular open source projects out there do just that.
Post reply on HN