Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by nixos 3508 days ago
The problem is that it doesn't help.

Commercial open source tends to be done for two reasons:

1. Common goal development. Several companies needs a UNIX. Rather than do all the development themselves, they work together. That's how Linux works. 2. Backup if original company's strategic goals move from your goal.

Here, neither work as you can't cooperate with others due to licensing issues.
1 comments
andrewchambers 3508 days ago
If the license doesn't allow applying or distributing third party patches I would be annoyed. If it allows it provided each party has paid for a license I would be happy.
link
jrpt 3508 days ago
It says right here, https://supportedsource.org/definition "Modifications. The license must permit modifications to the source code."

But you also can't just take parts of the code and redistribute it for free, because "Restricted Uses. The license should include restricted uses, such as disallowing resale or sublicensing."

The point isn't to prevent people from customizing their use of the software. The point is to create a system where developers get paid and projects are financially sustainable, instead of being abandoned or barely maintained.

link
nixos 3507 days ago
> The point isn't to prevent people from customizing their use of the software. The point is to create a system where developers get paid and projects are financially sustainable, instead of being abandoned or barely maintained.

The problem is that's actually one of the main powers of Open Source - the ability to fork it past the desires of upstream.

For example, I use Windows, which is "supported source". OK. Microsoft decides to put spyware. Now I need to rip it out. OK. Did so.

Now, one day later, Windows gets updated.

I have to go through the code again.

If it would be "Open Source", I'd just fork it. But now, I can't even share modifications (is it a derivative work?).Now every user would have to go through the code, find the privacy violations, and re-compile it.

Also, what happens Microsoft get's fed up and fully closes source (no more updates to "Supported Source", and they drop out of the program)? Each user has to keep up his version of Windows?

Not too useful.

If you think about it, how are there commercial communities around Apache/MIT/BSD?

Because no one wants to upkeep his fork, so they contribute code back so others can help maintain it.

That freedom can only be maintained by the ability to fork.

link