I don’t get why big companys are afraid of open source software.

I know that monetizing open source is hard but in exchange they would have 8 billion programmers ready, for free!

Even if they do like redhat , as controversial as it is right now, they would be better off than just closing the source.

I would be willing to pay to have the license to modify my own software even if I couldn’t redistribute it afterwards.

  • Square Singer@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The issue is there are a few ways of doing open source wrong.

    The biggest way to do it wrong is to try to sell the open source product while giving the source away for free. Because that means, there will be someone else who just takes the source and copies it with no or only minor changes (e.g. replacing logos and names).

    The copyists always have an huge competitive advantage, since they don’t have to pay for development. Especially for software, development makes up almost all of the cost, so that essentially means they can give away the product for almost free and still make a profit. Or they are open source spirited themselves and give it away completely for free, like CentOS.

    Sure, Red Hat can actually develop features that customers are asking for, which CentOS can’t really do, since they can’t influence Red Hat’s roadmap, but considering that Red Hat is asking for $350 for a server license, a free-and-good-enough alternative seems to be the better option for many.

    According to Wikipedia, CentOS is much more popular (or at least was in 2021) than Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

    So to do Open Source right, you need to make money from developing it. This is e.g. how the Linux kernel works. They don’t sell the kernel, but instead many companies fund kernel development either financially or through dedicating developers to that project. There are e.g. a lot of devs employed by Microsoft who are working on the Linux kernel.

    This gives these companies the ability to prioritize what features/bugs should be worked on.

    But this model doesn’t fit every product and thus not every product can be financially viably done in Open Source.

      • itchychips
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I personally think the best way to do open source is to do it as a hobby, and not hope for profits off of it. Open source is fundamentally programmers taking control of their field’s means of production, and the last thing I want to see is corporations co-opting that moreso than they have.

        This is the main reason everything I release is AGPL unless there is a strong reason against it: Corporations won’t use it.

          • itchychips
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Don’t get me wrong, I know why you are writing this, I know where you come from; but the binary “nothing or profits” view is the first problematic point.

            The thing is, you don’t know why I’m writing this. I wrote that, because I believe profit motive is a bad idea, and we should move beyond trying to ensure we can profit off of every little thing. It’s not either-or, it’s a criticism borne of my experience and observations with the current economic systems that ensure people starve.

            People and companies under our current system have been trying to sustainably profit off of open source, and while a few have succeeded, many have failed.

            I’ll stop being “petty” against corporations when profit isn’t more important than human lives (spoiler: It ain’t petty, and I’m not going to let my work become exploited).