Comment by hallarempt
4 years ago
_My_ source code is invaluable. It's open, public, free to reuse under the GPL. It's a complete implementation of a painting application used by millions of people. It's a huge amount of knowledge readily accessible. You won't be able to buy something like this for any sum of money, so it's free.
Is it really the source code that has value, or your continued expansion and development of said code? Genuine question.
The reason I'm asking, while I was writing the article, I was considering including the youtube-dl fiasco (when the RIAA took it down from GitHub) as an example. People were concerned not because the code was gone (lots of mirrors popped up quickly), but because they were worried that the contributors would stop further development.
I think that's another indicator that the code itself carries little value. However, the problem space you've loaded and mapped to code in your own head, does have lots of value. Of course the fact that you're sharing it with the world in the best format we know so far (code) for free is much appreciated :)
Youtube-dl is an app chasing a moving operating of trying to interact with other sites APIs... many of which don't really even want to let youtube-dl do that. Most apps aren't in such a difficult space and keep working basically forever.
> Most apps aren't in such a difficult space and keep working basically forever.
Sadly, this doesn't match my experience. Software that isn't actively maintained always dies, sooner or later.
18 replies →
I think both can be true.
A snapshot of source code can be useful as a basis for some other project. However, you're also correct that, if the source code is abandonware and you/others have no interest in maintaining it, it almost certainly becomes less useful over time and at some point just breaks.
Your youtube-dl example doesn't make sense because youtube-dl wasn't wiped from everyone's computer nor from package managers nor from the internet. So of course losing youtube-dl wasn't the concern.
The thing at threat was the thing the team was using to maintain it, so that's what people were concerned about.
You don't care more about your garage than your house just because you're crying about your garage when a tornado wrecks it but not your house.
Thanks for writing the article, see my comment else where in this thread. It's really helped me. I just been througha rough ride of a handover.
Context: They are the maintainer of Krita[0], a really popular open-source painting program.
[0] https://krita.org
> You won't be able to buy something like this for any sum of money, so it's free.
I don't understand this. Why won't you be able to buy something like this? Do you mean you won't be able to sell it? I suppose if the first condition is true, the second condition follows.
I'm really not trying to be snarky, but Adobe has something similar and you can buy it, right?