Open Source Licensing - Cuts Both Ways?

shortscruffydave writes "The Register is running a piece Open source databases - a sword that cuts both ways? which mentions one of the potential pitfalls of open source databases: "Open source is just another licensing model: the more accepted it becomes, the more it is adopted at a strategic level, the more it plays back into the hands of the traditional behemoths that dominate the industry". " I couldn't disagree more with the author of this piece, since I think the success of Postgres & MySQL are already contra-proof positive, but the piece is still an interesting read.

Comments

Licenses protect products period.

[NerdHead]

Licensing is what keeps those behemoths from getting their hands on these
applications. It is interesting that the writer didn't tell us what option
he'd prefer - a closed license or no license at all. MySQL is offering a
choice of a commercial license or open-source. Money is important for the
survival of the company that markets open-source products but open-source
licenses don't restrict companies from charging for their product and MySQL
is a good example for how to deal with the issue.

Re:Say what?

[gowen]

Look at some of they're other reports

In "The Road Ahead", Bill Gates himself wrote enthusiastically about the "software ecosystem" that surrounded Microsoft in its early years. It made a huge contribution to the success of Windows, by creating an application-rich environment. The same kind of ecosystem now surrounds Open Source and it is growing quickly. I am amazed by its potential. It could completely undermine Microsoft's monopoly, and it probably will. -- Samba, Soccer and Open Source

Microsoft has a horrible position to defend; they have created a monster of complexity by enabling such an open model. Whilst it is true that we as consumers have seen the benefits of lower prices and mounting capability, there has been a price to pay. When the foundation is so shaky, you cannot be certain whether you will derive benefit from an update or whether in fact it will cause untold grief. -- Further problems associated with Service Pack 2?

Doesn't read like a Gartner-style MS schill to me...

Re:I call bull

[malkavian]

Actually, it was MS that turned Software into a Commodity by releasing things like Visual Basic.
Something that in essence you need half a brain and one finger, and you're now a 'Developer'.
Sure, the low end stuff done by people that don't know what being a Developer really entails are crap, fall over all the time, and are usually really shoddy..
But, a lot of the time they get things done, sufficiently to make people not want to pay for the real thing.

In the 'early days', before coding became popular (I started in the early 80's), you did it because it was a passion.
Then in the 'Golden Age', you could, and did, make shed loads of cash for being good.

Then everyone and their dog became a 'Developer' with the visual tools, and especially web front ends.
The market got saturated with a lot of low skilled developers that were good enough to be 'fit for purpose'.
Then supply outstripped demand. And wages plummeted.

So, it's not open source that's causing "Starving Artist" syndrome. It's your hallowed Closed Source businesses lowering the bar of entry, and creating the equivalent of a nearly automated software factory.

In a short time, AI should be able to code better than a skilled developer. Then all that'll be left is getting the spec right, and doing the design abstraction.

I'm sure that the Monks felt the same way when the printing press was invented.

What the "Idiots giving it away for free" are doing is simply making sure that there's more than one printing press out there. So at least people that want to learn, get to do so.
This way, the entry bar pushes more towards having the skill and aptitude to perform a task, rather than having to have massive funding.
And the meritocracy is beginning to reappear.

The Free software that's extremely good will get used. If it's that good that it gets used, it WILL need support in enterprise/business.
If you don't want to do it, make a company, and hire some people that DO want to do support (and you only support them, as you'd have to do with ANY software you write, if you're serious about it). You pay the support staff less than the customer pays you.. And lo and behold! You get a salary (big if the code is something wonderful and useful) for coding! And you've created jobs for people that DO want to do the support too!

So, in reality those "Idiots" are rather smart, and quite able to make a sizable wad of money out of it.
If you want to make a lot of money writing software, go do it. But working out how to do it is the trick.