Re:Did capitalism hack the open-source model?
by maze-le on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @10:48AM
(#20095545)
>> Put aside the complaints about Google and DRM, and the main gist of this article is arguing that the "patch" for Open Source is to get rid of forking.
Well, that kind of is the "open" part of "open source". If you are free to redistribute code, it implies that you are free to fork. I wonder why the author doesn't push for more restrictive licensing models (like GPL) instead?
Re:Did capitalism hack the open-source model?
by danShumway on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @11:02AM
(#20095672)
The ironic part is that the one of the reasons this article was written in the first place was because the author tried to build a product off of Chromium and couldn't -- because modern Chrome relies on proprietary DRM modules that can't be forked.
And the takeaway they took away from that was, "authors should have more control over what other people do with their code."?
Re:Did capitalism hack the open-source model?
by jp_42 on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @11:05AM
(#20095698)
Hi, more restrictive licences like GPL tend to slow projects development and the code remain fully open-source, hence, any corporate can fork. Developers would need substancial resources to protect and enforce against the likes of the GAFA. We do not prone a full closed-source model, of course not, but rather the possibility to have a mix of public and open innovation within the same project.
Re:Did capitalism hack the open-source model?
by ymolodtsov on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @10:31AM
(#20095363)
I wouldn’t even say there are no rules. Apple doesn’t like GPL v3 so they don’t update some of the utilities in MacOS — it’s their choice and they bow to the rule.
Re:Did capitalism hack the open-source model?
by seraum on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @10:46AM
(#20095516)
Apple uses Cups for printing, for example, and they will surely abandon it
Re:Did capitalism hack the open-source model?
by icebraining on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @11:12AM
(#20095766)
Why would they do that? CUPS is owned by Apple, and not GPL-licensed.
> With the open-source model, the breach is the absence of a business model — not the fact that it is free, but rather, the absence of rules.
On the contrary, literally the whole point of the free software movement was to have an absence of rules. The "not needing to pay money" part was a side effect; an optional side effect that developers were encouraged to subvert.
People can argue that the lack of rules is a problem, but it's important to recognize that when they say things like this, they aren't saying, "Open Source has some flaws we need to fix." They're saying, "Open Source fundamentally doesn't work, and we should abandon it."
Put aside the complaints about Google and DRM, and the main gist of this article is arguing that the "patch" for Open Source is to get rid of forking.