|
|
|
|
|
by kollateral
2220 days ago
|
|
Upbound seems to still steering the project for the coming years. In fact, I can even say that it's not really open source so long its direction is set by a commercial entity. It's just that the code is open. I know that it's important that Upbound makes some money so that it can keep maintaining Crossplane (see poor Docker) but it's just we should be careful about what we call things so that the words don't get meaningless.. |
|
Do you also consider Gitlab or Red Hat products to be "not real open-source"? Because they are also controlled by a single commercial entity, yet nobody seems to question their open-source credentials.
> I know that it's important that Upbound makes some money so that it can keep maintaining Crossplane (see poor Docker) but ...
This is exactly why it's hard for companies like Docker to make money. Giving away a free product is not enough. Open-sourcing all of it is not enough. No, you have to create a bullshit "neutral" governance that ensures small companies like Upbound and Docker are kept in check by Google, Microsoft, IBM, and other giant corporations that can afford to pack committees, hire more contributors, and spend more marketing dollars to associate themselves with the brand.
Those foundations are not about making the projects more open at all. They have become a form of "protection money". Give your project away to a big foundation, indirectly controlled by large corporate sponsors who happen to be your competitors - or see your project sabotaged by people like you calling it "not really open", "evil" and "controlled by the VCs".