Slashdot Mirror
Assuring Users When Closed Software Becomes Open?
joeldg asks: "I just recently decided to go open source with a project I have been doing for some time. After initially going open source I have had an avalanche of questions from users about what 'Open Source' means and how it will affect them. Many are scared of the implications and the broad new sweeping changes others could make in the project. My question is how do you alleviate the fears of over 5,000 dedicated users and get them to accept the idea of the project going open source and also keep some track of the project so that you can direct the current userbase to new sites running the code?"
"As long as you use MY version, it's the same as closed-source, except that I receive contributions more readily, and can't start charging you for it [or you'd get my version elsewhere]. But if I start fucking you over and my version starts sucking, because I'm trying to limit what you're able to do, then you can find a version of MY SOFTWARE that doesn't include my fucking you over, and it's totally legit. Imagine if Microsoft had to deal with the idea that if they did things to alienate their users, their users would run not simply WINE, which is okay at running SOME windows programs, but WINDOWS ITSELF, only without the crippling antifeatures. At the most basic level, open source means that if your "benign dictatorship" isn't all that benign, they can get the same dictatorship with all the benignity they want, for FREE, elsewhere. It's democracy. It's Freedom. It's.... OPEN SOURCE."