Here's the Extinguish part you mentioned penguinist
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| gru Oct 30, 2015 1:08 PM EDT |
I have to admit, I'm a little confused. On one hand, Microsoft open-sources some components of the .NET framework, and on the other hand they closed-source a vital tool for some Android developers. I'm still convinced that Microsoft doesn't care about FOSS or GNU/Linux, or their communities. They're simply trying to nip a market trend in the bud... they're competing in a manner that appears collaborative at first glance. I think it's time we took a moment to re-evaluate how we look at corporate entities that offer open-source software, and if they are susceptible to buyouts, whether their projects are viable for the community to invest precious time and effort into. RoboVM would never have been such a huge loss if it had forked from the very beginning and managed by a non-corporate entity. We've already decided not to trust MySQL any more because of what Oracle has done to it. Why should we not apply this same decision to several other company-offered projects? |
| cybertao Oct 30, 2015 2:56 PM EDT |
From what I've read, components of RoboVM were proprietary and they sold commercial licences.(that they now want more for).
Quoting:RoboVM is a complicated piece of technology that we have worked hard for years to create. Over the past few months, we have seen competitors actively exploiting our good faith by using our open source code to compete with us directly in commercial products. On the flip side, we have received almost no meaningful contributions to our open source code. You can imagine how disappointing this has been to us; we had hoped our initial business model of OSS with proprietary extensions (like our debugger and interface builder integration) would work. But in light of the low contributions and behavior of competitors, we decided to stop automatically releasing changes to the core of RoboVM as open source.Their attitude from the very start is broken and a good example of the difference between open-source and free-software. They never wanted to provide the world with free software, they wanted the world to provide them with free development. |
| nmset Oct 30, 2015 3:33 PM EDT |
>They never wanted to provide the world with free software, they wanted the world to provide them with free development. I rather think the contrary : you can't pay your rent with an open source business model. I know, Red Hat is an exception. But just look at Canonical, it's still not profitable, though it's the most popular Linux distro. Now think about tiny companies, they don't have a least chance to survive if they go open and free. Your good faith WILL be abused if you have anything valuable. |
| cybertao Oct 30, 2015 4:32 PM EDT |
That's beside the point though, it appears RoboVM was always a commercial vendor. Creating something of value and watching people use it, even make money from it, is part and parcel of free software. |
| gru Oct 30, 2015 5:14 PM EDT |
I'm a little torn on this one. RoboVM should have known that their software would be forked the moment it appeared in the wild, that's just how things go. But it's also not cool to blatantly take open software offered in good faith and use it to put that company out of business, while also not giving anything back to the development effort.... that is, unless that company is Oracle, and you're MariaDB. |
| penguinist Oct 30, 2015 7:26 PM EDT |
In order to put this into perspective, it is important to keep in the forefront of our minds that we are not talking about some small company out there trying in earnest to make a go of it with a free-software project. We are talking about MICROSOFT. Of course, we have seen this pattern repeated time and time again: FEAR: Oh my, a small company was taken advantage of by those evil free-software developers. UNCERTAINTY: Well, is this really Microsoft in action or is it Xamarin or is it RoboVM? DOUBT: We are all supposed to wonder now if a business model involving free-software is really a good idea... Doubt, please doubt, everyone. blah, blah, blah... I am so bored by all these pattern repetitions. |
| cybertao Oct 30, 2015 8:45 PM EDT |
gru wrote:But it's also not cool to blatantly take open software offered in good faith and use it to put that company out of business...It may not always be 'cool', but it's a legitimate strategy. Open-source code is not offered 'in good faith' any more or less than what the license dictates. If a rival company uses the open-source code it has to release any modifications made, which the originating company can fold into their project. If a rival company can sell their services without making any modifications or contributions at all, the originating company must be doing it wrong - they should be in the best position to provide those products or services. Should someone else provide a better product or service, power to them! |
| 750 Oct 31, 2015 11:10 AM EDT |
Yay, Icaza... |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!