undefined | Better HN

Skip to content

Top Best Ask Show New Jobs

0 pointssokoloff4y ago0 comments

I can see several cases where open sourcing your core product will be very helpful to your company at one phase and harmful in another. Whether that’s a big problem in the system is a topic that people will differ on.

0 comments

5 comments · 1 top-level

Dylan168074y ago· 4 in thread

I get it, you see this as complaining about how things shifted when this is a tradeoff they embraced from the start.

But there are situations where it's not that things changed, with companies that would love to be open source but it would hurt them at all phases.

If you have to be super proprietary to make any money off software, that's bad for everyone.

When a piece of code is responsible for enormous amounts of money and none of that goes to the author, that's a bad way to get more code and a bad way to support valuable authors.

sokoloffOP4y ago

Does the presence of AGPL address most (almost all?) of your concern? It seems like that would offer individual users freedom to use and modify the source while precluding Amazon from monetizing it effectively.

Those same properties of AGPL mean it’s generally viewed as not as effective at attracting a community of early users, but in a case where the alternative is proprietary-only and the company “wants” to be open-source, AGPL seems a better option for them.

zeckalpha4y ago

AGPL only requires modified software used over a network to be contributed back. If it isn’t modified, no need!

If it isn't modified the AGPL is basically the same as "we use XYZ and you can download its source code from xyz.com" plus the copyleft.

Dylan168074y ago

I think what would solve my main concern here is a small royalty, but I also think it would be very difficult to implement in a fair way.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse