this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2024
45 points (94.1% liked)

Open Source

31725 readers
207 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
all 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jet@hackertalks.com 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't find myself disagreeing with anything they said.

But I think the key reason open source persists, is its availability. Even if it's not the best software, it's available in 5 years, in 10 years, and 15 years. So many companies outcompete open source projects, and then die on the vine, and disappear. They never get to actually compete in the evolution of the software.

For all of open source's faults, it's available, so it can evolve over time, it is persistent.

[–] amanda@aggregatet.org 4 points 5 months ago

Someone described open source as the commons of capital and I guess that’s not entirely incorrect. The availability of boring things like server operating systems, encryption libraries, etc, cheapens many commodities to the point where they are viable because people can afford them. Imagine the price of whatever IoT trinket is in vogue if the maker had to roll every software it touches from scratch.

[–] dandi8@fedia.io 10 points 5 months ago

I don't think source-available licenses have any chance of outcompeting open source, or at least I hope developers won't let them.

Open source thrives on contributions. The moment you restrict what I can do with the software I'm supposed to contribute to is the moment I ask myself: "am I being asked to work for free, solely for the benefit of someone else?".

The incentive to contribute completely disappears (at least to me) when I'm asked to do it for a project which "belongs to someone in particular".