| |||||||||||||
Evidence or urban legend - "problems" companies haveEvidence or urban legend - "problems" companies havePosted May 17, 2011 21:35 UTC (Tue) by quaid (guest, #26101)In reply to: Evidence or urban legend - "problems" companies have by dlang Parent article: Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software
"This isn't just Mark imagining things."
Agreed, nor am I imagining my own experience. (Which is that more companies strangle themselves in the open source crib than get strangled by external folks.)
But I'm not claiming my experience is the way things are, everywhere, and asking others to accept that anecdotal experience as unverified fact. Nor am I using it as the basis for an unpopular position.
(Log in to post comments)
Evidence or urban legend - "problems" companies have Posted May 17, 2011 21:38 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
I didn't read it that he is basing any position other than 'this is a problem' on the basis of these sorts of actions.
if saying that is an unpopular position, then more people need to take such an unpopular position.
Evidence or urban legend - "problems" companies have Posted May 17, 2011 22:32 UTC (Tue) by quaid (guest, #26101) [Link]
"I didn't read it that he is basing any position ..."
If the problem isn't as he describes it, then perhaps his conclusion of what to do is not the right answer?
His direction regarding CLAs is at least called in to question if he is basing that direction on the opinion that there is a wide spread problem if there is no evidence of that problem other than anecdotal.
Evidence or urban legend - "problems" companies have Posted May 18, 2011 1:06 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
as I was reading this, I didn't see him basing any actions or positions on the problems that companies have opening things, I read that as a separate complaint from the problems of getting the last 20% done. and I read him trying to deal with the 20% problem as the reason for pushing contributer agreements (along with the possibility of dual-licensing projects)
I don't think that his solution will solve the problem, but I think he's entitled to try it and see if he can make it work (there are a lot of companies out there that I would not have thought that there was enough to make it work)
I would disagree with straight copyright assignment, but I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with the right to dual license (which is not the same as making proprietary derivatives). I see this as giving people who want to use the code two options 'support the project by contributing code' or 'support the project by contributing money so that the project can buy time to generate code'.
I know that some people are not willing to accept that as choice for their code (especially if they are outsiders, not part of the organization that would be getting the money), and to those folks I would say, find a different project to contribute to, there's no shortage of worthy causes. I will also guarantee that you will not always agree with the choices the organization makes, and for that it doesn't matter what organization, be it Cannonical or the FSF.
|
|||||||||||||