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.

  • RandoCalrandian@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Anybody who is afraid of showing proof (which making the code open source does) should be given a wide berth

    They were depending on you not knowing, and that is never good for you

    • moon_matter@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They were depending on you not knowing, and that is never good for you

      It’s most often done for the sole purpose of retaining the ability to more easily profit off of your work. When you open source your software you are basically taking the most straight forward profit model off the table. Some projects do of course manage to still make it work, but only when the user base is composed of tech-savvy enthusiasts. If you’re open sourcing a desktop application targeted at the average user, like a game. It’s never going to work unless you hold something back (e.g. art assets).

      We need to stop with this false narrative that developers choose to keep their software closed sourced for malicious reasons. The truth is that profiting off of FOSS software is inherently difficult.

    • Kissaki@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This would be a valid generalized assessment if proof or not was the only concern when open sourcing. But it’s not.