It depends entirely on the license used IMO. GPL'd software can be monetized pretty much to any extent without hampering software freedom. To comply with GPL you have to allow your end users to run your code how they like, make modifications and redistribute the software either unchanged or with modifications. So, there's really no way for a company to 'make it less open'. With the more permissive licenses, there will always be issues with hampering freedom. But that is exactly why they are substandard for large and widely used codebases IMO.
Is it not the case that some open source software projects have a monetization model that is built on tutoring on how to use the product as well as general troubleshooting?
Big tech companies want to capitalize on open sources. No doubt about IBM and MS spent B to buy Github and Redhat to help them gain commercial benefit. But Open-source will be growing well. Google on the other side contributing and helping more to the open-source community. Doing well by doing good.
@@tripwire4727 interesting thought you are bringing up. Maybe you wanna expound on what you are thinking? You may be on to something and I would like to hear what you have to say.
@@funkymunky1776 as automation continues to eclipse human labor, there is a certain point when no one has a job anymore. At that point, a new economic model is inevitable.
I think a company's prime purpose is profit and not social cause. When push comes to shove (which it will obviously), they will try to put payment gateway around open source too. They will try to hire programmers from the open source community itself and it will lose its purpose for which it was made - decentralization.
There needs to be regulations in place for tech companies to get their hands off Open Source initiatives. They can help fund them instead, but not acquiring any of them.
Open Source isn't the same as Free and Open Source. The licensing is different. FOSS can be forked and continued, even if some corporate entity buys the program... Open Source isn't really free, as in freedom.
Free software license requires you to make your fork, open too. If you don't like what more than 50% of the population agrees, go live in a jungle, or some shithole like the US
It's interesting that software developers want to make a living by using their software skills, but many want software to be free. That's why most people are making RUclips videos and hoping and praying for monetization from Google Ads, so they can get paid without selling, while hoping Google advertisers will spend money by marketing to viewers, who ALL WANT FREE PRODUCTS, unless it is a physical product, that they cannot download and steal, like a house or a truck. Go figure.
They making it like those who comes from the companies are different humans, lol. Its the same. Company policies can be changed as well. So its not up to the companies but it will always comes down to a man's greediness level.
I know Everything about Windows van don't know How to put Javascript in Which places I Have To Be Fair Big Ferry links in the software and I know the same way from Apple en nou dit is even met Javascript te en dan kan ik tel People Around are you think that to me
Hi I'm Ariful Islam leeton im software engineer and members of the international organization who and investors and development Facebook and Facebook meta
This is excellently produced! Well done :)
It depends entirely on the license used IMO. GPL'd software can be monetized pretty much to any extent without hampering software freedom. To comply with GPL you have to allow your end users to run your code how they like, make modifications and redistribute the software either unchanged or with modifications. So, there's really no way for a company to 'make it less open'.
With the more permissive licenses, there will always be issues with hampering freedom. But that is exactly why they are substandard for large and widely used codebases IMO.
Is it not the case that some open source software projects have a monetization model that is built on tutoring on how to use the product as well as general troubleshooting?
Yes, support is a important thing for enterprises
@@godfather7339 and yet they are the most abused department
RedHat doesn't have control of Linux Kernel. Junio Hamano (maintainer of git) works for google.
Ouch. Gotta change the system from the inside?
@@tripwire4727 GIT is open source so you can gut it
Also, there's MERCURIAL
Yeah ! Just take things for granted :) and you know how it ends... ! BTW windows home still costs $139.00 ?
Lol. Yea....
Big tech companies want to capitalize on open sources. No doubt about IBM and MS spent B to buy Github and Redhat to help them gain commercial benefit. But Open-source will be growing well. Google on the other side contributing and helping more to the open-source community. Doing well by doing good.
But main Google apps are not open-sourced.
Interesting view. My question is: are these companies planning on a new economic model?
@@tripwire4727 interesting thought you are bringing up. Maybe you wanna expound on what you are thinking? You may be on to something and I would like to hear what you have to say.
@@funkymunky1776 as automation continues to eclipse human labor, there is a certain point when no one has a job anymore. At that point, a new economic model is inevitable.
@@tripwire4727 Okay but what has open-source to do with an economic model?
we will just create a fork project if those big tech pos companies do something annoying and infuriating
And so will everybody else. There will be a million forks, not one of which will work.
@@schmetterling4477 "non of which will work" meanwhile Linux...
@@godfather7339 Has a million forks, not one of which works. :-)
@@schmetterling4477 is that why Microsoft hosts Azure on Linux servers?
@@schmetterling4477 android kernel is a fork of Linux btw
I think a company's prime purpose is profit and not social cause. When push comes to shove (which it will obviously), they will try to put payment gateway around open source too. They will try to hire programmers from the open source community itself and it will lose its purpose for which it was made - decentralization.
There needs to be regulations in place for tech companies to get their hands off Open Source initiatives.
They can help fund them instead, but not acquiring any of them.
Open Source isn't the same as Free and Open Source. The licensing is different. FOSS can be forked and continued, even if some corporate entity buys the program... Open Source isn't really free, as in freedom.
Communism is forced, if some people are doing something voluntarily that is not communism.
If anything open source it's the free market, pure liberalism.
Free software license requires you to make your fork, open too.
If you don't like what more than 50% of the population agrees, go live in a jungle, or some shithole like the US
GNU GPL V3 License is Forcing Freedom.
Can we say it's New Form of Communism?
It's interesting that software developers want to make a living by using their software skills, but many want software to be free. That's why most people are making RUclips videos and hoping and praying for monetization from Google Ads, so they can get paid without selling, while hoping Google advertisers will spend money by marketing to viewers, who ALL WANT FREE PRODUCTS, unless it is a physical product, that they cannot download and steal, like a house or a truck. Go figure.
I think we are fucked. My programmer friends are more optimistic. I'm fkn trying.
They making it like those who comes from the companies are different humans, lol.
Its the same. Company policies can be changed as well. So its not up to the companies but it will always comes down to a man's greediness level.
I know Everything about Windows van don't know How to put Javascript in Which places I Have To Be Fair Big Ferry links in the software and I know the same way from Apple en nou dit is even met Javascript te en dan kan ik tel People Around are you think that to me
0:43
hahahahahaha bill gates with another one of his hilarious one liners
Open source is not meaning you don't pay
Hi I'm Ariful Islam leeton im software engineer and members of the international organization who and investors and development Facebook and Facebook meta