tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141673382754111320.post592140511130028052..comments2023-08-13T11:50:32.508-04:00Comments on Benoit des Ligneris : Open Source Catalyst: Neo-proprietary tactic considered harmful to open sourceAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01275775831212016043noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141673382754111320.post-30022208448756670592010-10-03T19:37:26.157-04:002010-10-03T19:37:26.157-04:00@robpelu : Well, for a software that has clear val...@robpelu : Well, for a software that has clear value to the users, it will be the case. But the "neo-proprietary" or "open-core" is a whole different story for me : in some case, we can consider that the core does not provide any useful function. This is, sometimes, a nice piece of code and of engineering but that's about it : it provides no value to their user.<br /><br />Also, because of this, contributing code that create value is, most of the time, difficult as it goes against the business model of the company.<br /><br />Yes, you can still fork, but you will only have a nice piece of software without that much (if any!) useful function for its users : it is difficult to create a community in this context.<br /><br />For sure, it takes much more effort and energy than to fork an open source project that includes open-core and open-plugins and open-documentation, etc. <br /><br />All in all, the chances of success of the fork are much lower than for a complete open-source project : indeed, that is exactly the goal of the "open-core" like companies : to create barriers (exit barrier in this case) and be able to re-licenses everything in order to sell it to some larger buyer...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01275775831212016043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141673382754111320.post-80345438221664245742010-10-03T19:31:31.597-04:002010-10-03T19:31:31.597-04:00@David "Lefty" Schlesinger : I think, we...@David "Lefty" Schlesinger : I think, we all would like to have google release 100% of their code. I don't think it is going to happen any time soon ;-) <br /><br />They completely respect the letter of the software they use. We can be sad about it or write more Affero GPL V3 code.<br /><br />My point here is that they respect the license of the software, are strong supporter of the FLOSS movement and and contribute back lots of improvements to lots of FLOSS : they don't pretend to be an open source company. As such, they don't abuse the "open source" or "open" term.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01275775831212016043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141673382754111320.post-40208821489031989802010-10-03T10:58:15.852-04:002010-10-03T10:58:15.852-04:00What about forking ? If a project (company) gets a...What about forking ? If a project (company) gets aquired the community could always fork the GPL code and create a community driven version ...<br />Robert.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00070272834896317004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141673382754111320.post-10907233636078451332010-10-02T00:54:45.463-04:002010-10-02T00:54:45.463-04:00Benoit—not only open source tools, but also heavil...Benoit—not only open source tools, but also heavily relying on open source code to which Google has applied substantial modifications and enhancements, none of which get shared back with the community because they're never actually "distributed" under the terms of the GPL...David "Lefty" Schlesingerhttp://www.shugendo.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141673382754111320.post-33770716382944223032010-09-30T17:43:56.024-04:002010-09-30T17:43:56.024-04:00@André Cotte : Je ne pense pas. Google a développé...@André Cotte : Je ne pense pas. Google a développé toute une série d'applications propriétaires en utilisant des outils open-source. Google ne s'affiche pas comme une compagnie "Open Source".<br /><br />Pour certaines technologies google a créé des projets qui sont open-source et contribue à de nombreuses technologies open source...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01275775831212016043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141673382754111320.post-80882716407150187552010-09-30T07:39:09.547-04:002010-09-30T07:39:09.547-04:00Peut-on classer Google parmi les neo-proprietary? ...Peut-on classer Google parmi les neo-proprietary? Personnellement, je le crois.André Cottehttp://carnet.andrecotte.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141673382754111320.post-72913989821872089582010-09-29T18:01:59.395-04:002010-09-29T18:01:59.395-04:00@Anonymous : Great idea ! I really think the FSF o...@Anonymous : Great idea ! I really think the FSF or Linux Foundation should do this : scan the web and host all the published code ... forever.<br /><br />However, if the software is not functional because the freemium version is not complete, the source code is not that useful and you will need additional development to<br />have a useful open source software.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01275775831212016043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141673382754111320.post-1230016668540690672010-09-29T17:57:16.174-04:002010-09-29T17:57:16.174-04:00@Jonathan : Yes, "open core" is used as ...@Jonathan : Yes, "open core" is used as well. I think we should never employ this term as it is a part of "Open Source". You can not be "half open" ;-)<br /><br />As a consequence, the "open core" term contribute to the brand dilution. So I really think that we should stick to the "neo-proprietary"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01275775831212016043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141673382754111320.post-53230370114872933882010-09-29T13:30:15.081-04:002010-09-29T13:30:15.081-04:00If an open source small business sells itself to a...If an open source small business sells itself to a larger business and in the process becomes proprietary then a FOSS foundation should logically be setup as a parcel of the seller. When something FOSS is sold off an then a new asset is received in return to the foundation. Should that be included in a new GPL license?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141673382754111320.post-81007007338443720002010-09-29T12:36:32.523-04:002010-09-29T12:36:32.523-04:00I see people refer to what you call "Neo-prop...I see people refer to what you call "Neo-proprietary" as "Open core" a lot these days. As in, there's a core that's free software, but to actually use it in a real business environment you need to buy a significant amount of non-free components as well.<br /><br />I like the Neo-proprietary term though, it describes better what it actually is!Jonathan Carterhttp://jonathancarter.orgnoreply@blogger.com