You'll find posts from me when I worked for true blue open source companies, or when I worked for others (AWS, Adobe): been saying the same thing for well over a decade bc the developer trends are clear: more oss use, yes, but also more proprietary sw *and* more open-but-not-oss
@mjasay
-
Open Source Adoption Gap Between Claims and Reality
By
–
T'is true: I've had this same view long before I ever joined mongodb. And I think ppl keep misreading the post. I care a lot about oss. Most developers don't. They can say they do but all you have to do is look at what they actually use. Most isn't open source.
-
Open Source Licensing and Contribution Models in Software Projects
By
–
And, I hope, will contribute more. It's something I worked on at AWS and believe is important. Separate the project from the license. Lucene doesn't compel contribution but ppl do when they see their self-interest in doing so. (PS I love Vespas and was just out riding mine)
-
Open Source Licenses: Empowerment vs Restriction Analysis
By
–
I think I agree, but I'm saying that stuff like the Meta license *also* empowers them to build. It only stops <5 companies from building. Or something like SSPL: love it or hate it, it enables 99.999% of the population, and stops .001%. Open source? Wrong question, is my argument
-
Open Source vs Proprietary: Kubernetes Market Dominance Comparison
By
–
this, in turn, makes it easier for developers to get jobs (because they know k8s), and for companies to build with it. But the same thing happens in proprietary software: just requires a company to have sufficient clout to own a big chunk of the market. I prefer the OSS way
-
Kubernetes openness enables vendor standardization beyond licensing
By
–
I have said that it matters in some ways. It matters, for example, that K8s is open, not because of the license, but bc that openness makes it easier for vendors to rally around a single standard (though of course there's no single standard – just look at the cloud services).
-
GitHub Generation Goes Post Open Source Impact
By
–
No, I think the "kids" decided that. Go back and look at what @monkchips pointed out over a decade ago. The GitHub generation went "post open source." If I sound like I like it, I don't.But I also see every day that it doesn't matter the way it once did (or that I thought it did)
-
Open Source Licensing War: Developers Prioritize Access Over Purity
By
–
"It’s time for the open source Rambos to stop fighting [20 years movement toward ever more permissive licensing] and agree that developers care more about software’s access and ease of use than the purity of its license" https://t.co/a4E8RGVYju by @mjasay for @InfoWorld pic.twitter.com/9PIZoeAk7k
— Matt Asay (@mjasay) 31 juillet 2023"It’s time for the open source Rambos to stop fighting [20 years movement toward ever more permissive licensing] and agree that developers care more about software’s access and ease of use than the purity of its license" https://
infoworld.com/article/370376
8/the-licensing-war-is-over.html
… by @mjasay for @InfoWorld -
Open Source Term Appropriation and Semantic Dilution Issues
By
–
the reason "shared source" or "source available" don't really work is because they aren't shorthand. They require too much thinking. See how "open source" has been appropriated by other areas (in national security, etc). It no longer has that OSD meaning you (and I) like