91–100 of 171 posts
" I decided to try a crowd-sourced campaign to help with the open sourcing effort. Precisely zero of the companies that have been begging me to open-source the code have contributed in any capacity." Wow, that speaks volumes. Good call on not open sourcing your code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's not the issue. People object to useful IP rotting in the back of a filing cabinet, unused. It's not about getting it free, it's about being able to get it at all. (Some people may want things for free but that's a different issue.)
In a repeated game (which the world is), otherwise-paying customers can just sit back, wait for the company to fail, and then get the software for free.
Not all companies have that model though.
I'm always brought back to the time I decided to literally sell everything I had and leave the country. A few weeks before leaving I listed each item I had for extremely reasonable prices. A $400 couch for $200, table for $20, beautiful custom framed long print of an old possibly rare poster for $50. Laser printer for $20. Ridiculously reasonable prices on everything on and on. Nobody bought anything and every thing…
I think that's why B2B is so popular: people are willing to spend money to increase their corporation's value, when spending more than a latte's worth on personal software often is agonizing.
There's a cost to open sourcing software. I like that the OP pointed that there was software that was sub-licensed and needed to be excised. Netscape took close to a year to open source their browser as Firefox using every significant company resource.
He should have always been (trying to be) aware of all the licenses he was using from the start. You can't just use any code you find on the net and staple it into your project.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to be clear: at issue here isn't whether some piece of code scraped from an HTTP response or found without a license on Github should revert to the public domain. The specific entitlement we are discussing is whether work you produce on your own in private, without ever revealing it to the public, is so encumbered by the entitlement of strangers that you have a duty to furnish it . That's what people who cajole…
Absolutely. To be crystal clear, I am discussing whether the technical & intellectual work produced as part of your (as commonly understood by the layperson) property and business, ought (as a duty) to be furnished by the creator/owner under some license to the broader world in some sense (whether by specific request or generalized publishing). I argue that, generally, if said piece of property has no other encumbran…
So, the question then becomes how much more do I owe society? Am I obligated to spend 40 hours to clean up the code? Should I pay for a personal E&O policy on the off-chance I'm infringing on IP or unwittingly using someone's patented work? Should I continue running the corporation just to protect my personal interests?
And even if we managed to come to some agreement on all that, is it really the best way I could contribute to society? Would that 40 hours be better spent volunteering at a soup kitchen? Maybe spending the time programming for some non-profit that needs help?
The question seems simple at face value. The reasons for open sourcing dead software sound fantastic in an idealistic society. But the reality is far more complicated than the question suggests. And I don't think it's entirely fair to expect or demand this of people.
Is it possible that you failed at commercialization, and now you can't bear the thought that open sourcing your creation might lead to zero stars and forks on Github? Is it possible that the "bombardment of questions" you claim was nothing more than a handful, maybe in the half-dozen or so range, of people who wanted to offer you emotional support because that is free for them to do while paying you for a product the…
There's a cost to open sourcing software. I like that the OP pointed that there was software that was sub-licensed and needed to be excised. Netscape took close to a year to open source their browser as Firefox using every significant company resource.
He should have always been (trying to be) aware of all the licenses he was using from the start. You can't just use any code you find on the net and staple it into your project.
And that says nothing of the commercial products I licensed that I knew I wouldn't be able to sublicense. But, the name of the game was expediency. I liked the theme on WrapBootstrap. I paid ~$20 for it and got up and running in a weekend. Recreating that would have been considerably more effort at significantly more cost. I made a trade-off, as businesses need to do. It's technical debt, one I'm not obligated to pay and don't see the long-term value being worth it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've sometimes experienced the opposite, where no one wants it when it's free, but put a price tag on it and suddenly they have to have it right now. Long ago I volunteered at a food pantry that "sold" food for $1 a bag, because (against what Econ 101 would say) people didn't act as entitled when they were entering a transaction.
Before I gave up on Craigslist completely, I had multiple experiences where I offered something nice for free, people quickly replied to claim it, and either never showed up to pick it up, or made it a complete pain in the ass (e.g. the people who showed up at my house at 6AM on a Saturday to get a couch, after having agreed to come at 10AM).
There is a real problem with the perceived value of software. The public sees Google giving everything away, not understanding the underlying business model, and assumes all software has little or no value. Software is not made of physical materials, so why should it be compensated? The public sees Apple apps for 99¢, so shouldn't all software be priced like that? I recently dealt with a customer demanding a free upg…
Ask the customer when was the last time Microsoft gave a free upgrade for Office.
If you're asking why sadly: if you're not paying... etc
Is it possible that you failed at commercialization, and now you can't bear the thought that open sourcing your creation might lead to zero stars and forks on Github? Is it possible that the "bombardment of questions" you claim was nothing more than a handful, maybe in the half-dozen or so range, of people who wanted to offer you emotional support because that is free for them to do while paying you for a product the…
The number of leading and insulting questions here lead me to believe you simply didn't read the post. Go back and take the 15 minutes to actually read it. You'll find most of it answered. And feel free to spend a modicum of effort looking me up to determine to what degree I care about stars on GitHub.