OSDev.org

..

Do I think having commercial software open source is a good idea? Sometimes.
Do I think all commercial software should be open source? No.

So I answered 'No.' even though I can think of valid reasons to opensource commercial software, because I don't think there's any reason why closed source software couldn't just as good a model.

Ok, I think you deserve (for good or bad) to hear my opinion in a bit more detail.

From the company point-of-view, whether opensourcing something is a good idea or not depends completely on what you intent to profit from. If your profit-model is selling software, giving it away for free doesn't sound that great.

If your profit-model is selling a development platform (or libraris or whatever), then it might make sense to opensource with a license that let's developers around the world play with it, but requires people to buy commercial licenses when they want to build something commercial on top of it. For a platform provider, having developers use your platform (outside your company) is everything, and developers like opensource, don't they? You might even be able to charge more from the commercial licenses since you the developers don't need to afford you to learn to use and like your platform.

If your profit-model is selling solutions or services, then opensourcing might be a good idea. Since you aren't really selling the software but solutions built from it, any time used to develop your own tools is more or less wasted, unless ofcourse your solutions are based on the superiority of your inhouse tools, in which case opensourcing them would be insane. In any case, I think many service-companies could benefit from opensourcing, by sharing the work with others with same needs.

It's the same with individuals. People don't opensource stuff they want to sell. They opensource stuff they need anyway, so they can hope to share some of the effort with other people.

You can't make profit with OSS, period.

You can make profit with support for OSS software, with providing consulting services, manuals, customizing OSS for specific customers.

But all that is only marginally related to the OSS itself. Basically, what the few successful commercial OSS vendors (Red Hat, IBM et al.) do is cross-financing their OSS efforts with other business departments so the stuff they do their consulting / support service on is done in-house (to have some control over it).

That doesn't work for individuals, or even mid-sized companies.

Yeah, well, if you want to profit from the software itself, then OSS makes no sense. If the software itself is just a cost and you don't mind other using it too, then OSS can be beneficial.

mystran wrote: Do I think having commercial software open source is a good idea? Sometimes.
Do I think all commercial software should be open source? No.

What they said, but you have to realize that there's money to be made consulting and creating implementations for open source code/frameworkds that can earn you a lot more than retailing software. IBM does this ALOT, as well as many, many others big & small.

Sure, your webserver project or whatever is totally free, but then you can make a hideously large profit off of handling it for clients who really, really don't want to be arsed dealing with it themselves.

..

Most software should be open. security software? no way!

personally, i don't like open, open software: control freak .
dont take me wrong though: i like to share, but i like credit (and like to give credit)

Dragon_Hilord wrote: Most software should be open. security software? no way!

It's the other way around, actually...

personally, i don't like open, open software: control freak .
dont take me wrong though: i like to share, but i like credit (and like to give credit)

I think you got Open Source wrong, here. Credit is only rarely the issue; usually you get your credit even when your project is forked by someone.

Hm ... but it is polite to give credit where credit is due.

open source ... well, as some ave said already, you can earn a good deal of money by giving consulting services to folks who don't wanna deal with the whole thing by themselves. That's a valid point.

I wouldn't opensource each and everything either: some hard gained development you want to keep for yourself because it contains enterprise critic code is nothing to be open sourced at all. Well, it depends, as perica has stated.

im working on a license that allows people to use code with propiety stuff and give me control over what i got.

i still stand by having security closed. sorry.

i don't mind people using my source, but i want it to remain open. the GNU GPL isn't _exactly_ what i need (i want to keep some closed, release source for others only now and then, etc.)

Regardless of my opinion of it - and I frankly don't have a strong feeling on the subject either way - I can tell you that I don't think it will be an issue much longer. I suspect that software development will soon be a regulated industry, at least in the US, with the result that

• an utterly unworkable DRM system will be legally mandated
• Microsoft will be given Regulated Monopoly status within the area of operating systems, but forced to divest it's other product lines
• Programming will become a licensed profession; unlicensed programming (outside of classrooms) will be a felony, as will using software written by unlicensed programmers
• all software will be required to undergo a government source code review, and only those products which pass on IP, security and liability will be allowed for sale
• public release of source code will be illegal on the grounds of security
• freely distributable software will become illegal (or at least infeasible)
• the US will impose trade sanctions or even threaten war with any nation that doesn't get in line behind the system
• the IT industry worldwide will grind to a halt.

I just hope I'm wrong. I've intentionally come up with the worst case I could think of, on the basis that that is usually the one that comes true (except when an unforeseen, even worse, case occurs).

Schol-R-LEA wrote: Regardless of my opinion of it - and I frankly don't have a strong feeling on the subject either way - I can tell you that I don't think it will be an issue much longer. I suspect that software development will soon be a regulated industry, at least in the US, with the result that

• an utterly unworkable DRM system will be legally mandated
• Microsoft will be given Regulated Monopoly status within the area of operating systems, but forced to divest it's other product lines
• all software will be required to undergo a government source code review, and only those products which pass on IP, security and liability will be allowed for sale
• freely distributable software will become illegal (or at least infeasible)
• the IT industry worldwide will grind to a halt.

I just hope I'm wrong.

The worst that the US could do is make it unworkable in their country. Other countries can take a different view on it, and just not give a ****. I'm kind of expecting a split, where the one half is the "good guys" that use drm, spent loads of cash and crash all the time, and on the other side are the "bad guys" that provide themselves with fair use access of the material they paid for. IE, if they could view a movie once, they do so, but in their own discretion. Nobody needs to read me rights, I can read them myself. If I break them, I'm responsible. Say, the way the normal justice system works right now. You can't steal somebody elses car even if it isn't locked. If he sells you the right to use it once but doesn't allow you to use that then you can complain about it or use some other method of just using what you should've gotten (what you paid for anyway) as long as it doesn't damage his property.

you can guess that my OS will /NEVER/ have DRM of any kind. Not breaking copyright laws is YOUR problem, not something any industry should regulate for you. I expect to be cut off from all "modern types of entertainment" on my system, such as cheap hollywood movies and games that all look alike. In a way, you wouldn't even lose that much. Instead you could start watching decent stuff (such as games with a plot, a storyline or a new form of gameplay) and help others improve.



Kind of a slogan for the second type would be "Make the world a better place to live in". For the first one it'd be something like "1. steal world; 2. ?; 3. Profit".