Why single vendor is the new proprietary
Why single vendor is the new proprietary
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4a427/4a4272070ef5241f024c890c9b097fb4b97396c8" alt=""
it’s time to reassert the value of software developed in an open collaboration. Everything else is proprietary. Everything else is a relicensing time bomb.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3e262/3e262b4fc31a98f56b647d780fc9bb4a924bda59" alt="Why single vendor is the new proprietary"
Why single vendor is the new proprietary
it’s time to reassert the value of software developed in an open collaboration. Everything else is proprietary. Everything else is a relicensing time bomb.
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.