- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans
You must log in or register to comment.
the vast majority of projects are single developer.
As it always is in software, it depends. Theres a lot of small, core, open source utilities maintained by a single person (the recent xz utility, as a recent example).
But major software projects (Redis, another recent example) requires far more than 1 developer
I don’t see a solution being proposed for companies like ElasticSearch and Redis. What are they supposed to do if the value from their products is reaped by other entities affecting their ability to continue developing those products?
“We had to fire these people, but at least we’re OSI OSS!!”, “The company died but at least we’re OSI OSS!”, “We can’t make a living, but at least we’re principled!!!”.What’s the suggestion here? Ignore what’s going on to satisfy a definition?
Here is my understanding of author’s position: Stay away from companies like Redis and ElasticSearch. They are building software with a proprietary mindset (the fact that they have tight control over product strategy and development demonstrates this) only to realize that they are being devoured by bigger fish. It’s a business model problem, not an open source problem.
So what’s the better business model, is what I would ask the dude.
I don’t think that is relevant from author’s (and OSI’s) point of view.
Which is why I say they live in their land of make believe. It’s great to preach principles when you’re not the one impacted sticking to them.
Sorry, I don’t follow your reasoning. Why would a company not making money be a relevant problem for the advocates of FOSS? FOSS is about freedom. It never had an opinion about money. Money has always been irrelevant. Some people may not like it, and they are free to not use non-free licenses. And FOSS advocates will warn users about that (as they did in the past). FOSS doesn’t have an obligation to offer a solution to every problem in the software industry.
Money has always been irrelevant.
This is the point. In the real world, money matters. Comments from an org like OSI on companies not being principled are akin to the church making comments on abortion. To these orgs it’s a black and white issue: either you adhere to their beliefs and are “good” or you don’t and you are “evil”.
Articles like these sound like out of touch preachers screaming about queers and family values. And people who blindly follow them with no arguments but “it was written by X” or “it’s written in Y” are just appealing to authority.
That’s an unnecessarily strong reaction. Money clearly matters for some things. But that’s not all that matters. There are many people releasing FOSS without any financial expectations. Clearly, money doesn’t matter to those people on that context. Trying to argue that “money should matter also for those people on that context” doesn’t make too much sense to me. Nobody is forcing anybody to release FOSS.
