241–250 of 316 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having a domain name doesn’t mean you own a term.
A term with no agreed meaning has limited utility. We have an official definition. I don't understand how the community benefits from making the definition more ambiguous and murky. Is there a group that's heavily invested conflating open source with source-available? I just don't understand who wins in that scenario.
Lol how is it 'official'? Who officiated it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Open source can either mean "publish the source" or "run it as a community project". Most of the benefits of open source (for the company) would come from running it as a community project, which would imply giving up some of the control. Simply throwing the code over the wall without accepting contributions doesn't meaningfully benefit the company. There are of course graduations between "don't accept any contributi…
>Some projects work because many companies depend on it and contribute (but they wouldn't do it - or at least not nearly as much - if the project was strictly centrally controlled) I can't help but think of Linux when you say this, and Linux is strictly centrally controlled
Earlier quoted context omitted.
KiCAD is another package that I think is fairly competitive at this point. It’s not going to kill Altium, but it’s improved greatly in the last 3 years.
I actually disagree and think Altium will, in fact, be Victim #001 of KiCad. The question becomes: "Is Altium thousand dollars better than KiCad?" And a lot of the time the answer will now be "No." I already split my designs about 50/50 between Altium and KiCad--and that's before KiCad 6.0 which is imminent (6.0RC2 exists right now ). 1) KiCad has one killer feature: it's cross platform. I would argue that this will,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Then the community forks the OSS project and you lose control/struggle to maintain parity/mindshare That shouldn't matter if you're making a superior product.
Well, yeah. So what's in it for them?
If he had said "It isn't open source because it's ours and we don't want it to be" that would have much more integrity than this.
Why do you think he is lacking integrity as it stands?
Most of these are about wanting control over the design of the software - but releasing their code doesn't have any impact on that - I don't get it? Java is open source - Oracle still tightly controls and manages the design of Java. For example 'Bad design is expensive' - how releasing your source lead to bad design? That's a complete non-sequitur.
Wolfram here were contrasting their model against the idea that products like Mathematica could have been developed in a fully “open source” manner. (It’s a false binary, but it’s what they’re doing.) “Open source” is a different thing than “source-available” or “shared-source.” Many closed-source products are “source-available” in the manner you’re talking about, but this does not make them “open source.” You’re not…
> 1. Your project starts accepting code contributions from the community (if perhaps after a gruelling code-contribution process); or
> 2. Your project’s codebase becomes licensed in a way that allows people to fork it, add their own changes, and then use the result themselves to achieve their own ends (if perhaps only non-commercial ends.)
There is a formal definition of Open Source by the Open Source Initiative:
Only 2 is open source (but the no-commercial condition means this it is not), while only 1 is not open source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also, everyone here over 40 would prefer going back in time to closed-source. Yes, M$ would still reign supreme, but at least the buck you made was an honest quid pro quo, and not accessory to the surveillance economy. That's a very strong claim. MS sucked without FOSS competition, and is quite happy to drive the surveillance economy.
Classic ignoratio elenchi triggered by emotional response to M$.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wolfram here were contrasting their model against the idea that products like Mathematica could have been developed in a fully “open source” manner. (It’s a false binary, but it’s what they’re doing.) “Open source” is a different thing than “source-available” or “shared-source.” Many closed-source products are “source-available” in the manner you’re talking about, but this does not make them “open source.” You’re not…
> You’re not really an open-source project, in the conventional meaning of the term, until either > 1. Your project starts accepting code contributions from the community (if perhaps after a gruelling code-contribution process); or > 2. Your project’s codebase becomes licensed in a way that allows people to fork it, add their own changes, and then use the result themselves to achieve their own ends (if perhaps only n…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wolfram here were contrasting their model against the idea that products like Mathematica could have been developed in a fully “open source” manner. (It’s a false binary, but it’s what they’re doing.) “Open source” is a different thing than “source-available” or “shared-source.” Many closed-source products are “source-available” in the manner you’re talking about, but this does not make them “open source.” You’re not…
> You’re not really an open-source project, in the conventional meaning of the term, until either > 1. Your project starts accepting code contributions from the community (if perhaps after a gruelling code-contribution process); or > 2. Your project’s codebase becomes licensed in a way that allows people to fork it, add their own changes, and then use the result themselves to achieve their own ends (if perhaps only n…