Skip Navigation

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

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.

52

You're viewing a single thread.

52 comments
  • Because that's not how professional software development works. You don't actually get free programmers because most of the time your customers are not techy people.

    E.g. if I develop some special software for dentists or whatever, and I open source it, all I get is that someone else builds the code and distributes it for free so I can't easily sell it anymore.

    • expired

    • if I develop some special software for dentists or whatever, and I open source it, all I get is that someone else builds the code and distributes it for free so I can’t easily sell it anymore.

      Are there a lot of industries that would accept a piece of software that comes without techical support and/or liability?

      • What would happen is not dentists installing your software themselves, without support.

        What would happen, and already happened countless times is that you see companies appearing that will sell services to install and maintain your open source software. It will be done by software developers just like you, except they can spend their whole time working for their customer instead of working on improving the software itself.

        You will soon realize that you make money from the same activity as them, except you also have to maintain the software (and spent time to build it in the first place).

        Of course you can use shady techniques to make it harder for others to understand your code, or release the open source version with a delay, but if you play by the usual rules of open source, with open development, third party developers will be able to acquire as much knowledge as you about the product.

        • Acquiring knowledge about the product takes time. Upstream has a better position just by being the one to create it and having all the knowledge about the product immediately, not after some time. Someone who decides to rebuild that would either have to fully maintain their own fork (and open source their work as well if the upstream has copyleft license), or upstream their changes, since reapplying bug fixes and new features requested by clients on top of the original codebase will take more and more time with each upstream change. Upstream can also restrict the use of their trademark, which would add a burden of marketing to downstreams as well.

    • Can someone rip your work? Yes. Is that really an issue? No. Just stealing the code changes nothing, the person needs to invest money to continue build it themselves. The original developers will always be at an advantage since they know the code base. The fork (the new version) also won’t benefit from any of the changes by the original developers, or they need to carefully copy them over. If the hostile fork is also open source then it doesn’t matter since you can just take their changes if they are good. Making it mutual.

      You can also use licenses that forbid the closing of the source. Doesn’t stop real thief’s, but it gives you a tool to stop it and also anyone who ignores a license like that is also generally not very competent.

      • Not necessarily. The original developer might know the code base better, but the hostile fork needs no development cost.

        The 3D printing industry is a really good example of something like that. Take for example Marlin. That's the firmware that runs on the vast majority of 3D printers. It is open source and thus freely available.

        Many 3D printer manufacturers just download a copy of Marlin, change the logos and slap it onto their printer. They are never going to update it, because Marlin is great as is and most customers won't ever update it anyway. So the 3D printer manufacturer has a development cost of maybe 1-2h to dial in the config and replace the logos. Compared to the developers of Marlin, who spent whatever the time equivalent to 19691 commits is. Also, the 3D printer manufacturer earns money from the sale, the Marlin devs don't.

        Or take a look at e3d, who recently stopped open sourcing their hardware. They created the E3D v6 hotend, which is by far the most common hotend to this day. The issue is, most people don't buy an original E3D v6, which costs ~€50-70 (the more common 1.75mm version), but instead they buy the cheap €15 copy from Amazon or the €5 version from Aliexpress.

        Again, the copyists might not have the expertise that e3d put into their work, but they know the exact dimensions and the material that needs to be used, and they just make a perfect replica. No research costs, only manufacturing, and be done with it.

        Open source is only sustainable if you get your money for developing, not for selling the product. So for open source to work, you need e.g. a Patreon or cooperate sponsorships to fund the development, so that after development is done (before any product is sold) you got your money.

        • expired

          • Sorry, but your arguments are seriously flawed, and you calling everyone uneducated who doesn't follow your flawed argumentation is honestly insulting.

            Many intellectual properties are hard to create but easy to copy, and the whole point of an open source project is to make it easy to replicate. If you want to stop others from building your project, open sourcing the design files, manuals, source code and project documentation is not the right way to go.

            I actually would not buy a 3D printer hotend from Amazon or Aliexpress. Not only because that would be utterly irresponsible to buy manufactured e-waste when our landfills are already overflowing; but because that’s actually how you stay poor: investing into a high quality product will relatively yield better results for a much longer time, and will end up costing you dramatically less in the long run.

            This is just an utter misunderstanding of the whole situation.

            Designing and making a 3D printer or parts of one are two very different things. Designing means you need to have a good hardware designer that spends a lot of time trying to find the best geometry and materials for the job. Making the parts means you need to have a good machinist and good tools for that.

            Most of these cheap clones are made by really good hardware manufacturers. For example, Trianglelabs hotends are on the exact same level of quality as an original e3d part.

            So buying clones is not e-waste at all (at least not more than the original parts) and the original parts are (to the consumer) mostly just really expensive versions of the same thing. Which anyone educated in that field would know.

            High price doesn't equate quality at all. Just ask the guys who are currently floating around the Titanic.

            I actually would not buy a 3D printer hotend from Amazon or Aliexpress.

            Btw, e3d does sell on Amazon and Aliexpress as well. So that point is totally moot.

            Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

            Finally, companies don't care about flattery. Flattery doesn't pay bills or earn profit.

    • Makes a lot of sense, but I was thinking more of a tech oriented stuff

52 comments