[fivedogit]

We're our own worst enemies. Software developers have this sort of circular firing squad where nobody wants to be the first to keep their source closed and try to charge for it. Because then you're just "greedy" and not pure enough.

But that'll never change unless all of a sudden we say "Ok, on the count of 3, everybody stop giving away their hard-earned expertise for free. 1... 2... 3..." We're like musicians nowadays. We love it, so we do it without insisting on compensation.

A few months ago, I Show HN'd an open source project, but reserved the copyright to the code. The commenters immediately took note of this and I felt compelled to switch it to an MIT license. (It was open source for security reasons, if you're wondering.) I'm glad I did, but the point remains: there was pressure to conform.

[dragonwriter]

> Software developers have this sort of circular firing squad where nobody wants to be the first to keep their source closed and try to charge for it.

Er, the first to keep their source closed and try to charge for it happened a long time ago, and there are huge numbers of developers at firms from one-man shops to massive megacorps still doing it today.

The idea that closed-source for-profit development is a novel idea that violates norms in the software development community and that everyone is afraid to try is cute, but, you know, completely contrary to the actual facts of both the current state and history of software development.

[erichmond]

Why in the world would this be downvoted? There is nothing inflammatory about this post at all. He's bringing up a widely debated point in our industry.

[fnordfnordfnord]

Probably because we're talking about encryption software ITT, and nobody would trust closed source encryption software.

[toyg]

> nobody would trust closed source encryption software.

ORLY? Have you read much source for BitLocker or FileVault, recently? WhatsApp? Skype? And those are just the most popular ones off the top of my head...

[fnordfnordfnord]

No, and I wouldn't trust myself to read it either. But, there's a fair chance that someone I trust eventually will and that they'll point it out when they see something fishy.

[mattgreenrocks]

Nobody wants to pay for infrastructure. Devs expect it all for free, even if it puts you in a Turing tar pit of plugins.

[fsloth]

If anyone suggests it's not ok to make a living out of your chosen profession it's pretty okay to ignore their advice.

Some source is better to be open for all stakeholders, others... it's more or less irrelevant, unless you believe the entire world is out to get you.

[72deluxe]

I see the encouragement to switch to an open source model a lot too. When a closed-source or close-licensed project is posted, you get a few commenters saying how great it'd be if the project was open source because then the community would benefit. Call me a cynic but in reality, this likely means "please make the source and licence more open so that I can use it without paying you".

I say this because I know that when I am looking for libraries to use at work in commercial software, I have to look for BSD-style code and now actively steer clear from GPL and LGPL code (static builds for me please).

It isn't to be malicious but it's mainly because I would like to continue living. Giving away things I have spent years working on doesn't pay my mortgage or put food on the table.

[crazy1van]

> where nobody wants to be the first to keep their source closed and try to charge for it

Seems like there's another option -- open source your project and also charge for a license to use it. By open sourcing people will trust it more which will cause its value to go up. And then more people would be willing to pay for it.

[dragonwriter]

> Seems like there's another option -- open source your project and also charge for a license to use it.

If you open source your project, unless you're using an unusual definition of open source, you've provided a free-of-charge, sublicensable license to use, modify, and distribute it. (Or, at least, a license that the licensee is free to sublicense without charging the sublicensee or paying an additional fee to you, so even if you are charging for the direct licenses, the more you sell the greater the probability that it will be available at no charge.)

You could open source it and charge a fee for professional support, however, which is a fairly common model.

[IceyEC]

As I understand it, that's what he did. He open sourced it and kept copyright on it. That would mean that everybody would be free to read it as posted but wouldn't be able to use it or distribute it without permission.

[dragonwriter]

Releasing something under an open source license usually involves retaining copyright but is, itself, giving permission to use, distribute, modify, and distribute modifications. Pretty much every open source project either retains copyright of the work or is composed of the work of developers who each retain copyright of their portion of the work.

[sukilot]

The anti-GPL , pro-BSD/MIT consumers are a selfish minority.

But there are library authors who publish BSD (governnent funding) who can't partner with GPL. It's unfortunate.