← Back to context

Comment by saghm

14 hours ago

> But they won't learn that on their own

I think they're fully aware of this. They just don't care, because the goal of "get market share super high" has been reached, so now they have no need for it to continue being open.

I don't disagree about what that means we should do; I just don't think we should assume they're being naive here. It's like writing a program to play chess; you should select your move assuming the opponent is smart and will make the optimal counterplay rather than assuming weakness, and then if they end up being less smart than that, you're still in a good place.

12 comments

saghm

Reply
godelski  9 hours ago

Tbh I don't think fighting open source is Google's best play. I think it is in their own best interest to keep it fully open. It is free labor by those who are most passionate. It gives strong signals at what people want, this direction you develop. It strengthens security as more people try to test it. It means people work on forks rather than alternatives. All this is true even with a monopolistic market share.

So yes, I do think they are being naïve. The stance is myopic. It is only a good move in the short term, and barely even that. It is under the false belief that we operate in a zero sum game.

  • pjmlp  8 hours ago

    Most successful open source projects have devs being paid by big corporations, including Linux itself, which only really took off in the 2000's when companies like IBM started caring.

    Also in the last century most software was commercial, and thanks to business friendly licenses we are back to demos, PD, Shareware and co, only with new names for a younger generation.

    Google will do just fine.

    • spockz  5 hours ago

      I don’t get the hate for business licenses.

      I’ve seen many open source contributors deflated because they wanted to share their code/solutions with other individuals and the world to learn from only to have their work sold as a service by a big cloud vendor without seeing something back for it. Or maybe even getting more work back to support the cloud vendor for free.

      So I’m not surprised at all that licenses that allow commercial use up to a point and above that require seperate license or contributions back. It is still open source in a lot of ways. Can still be part of other open source distributions that themselves make no profit etc. And only companies that are more than able to pay must pay something.

      1 reply →

    • b112  3 hours ago

      which only really took off in the 2000's when companies like IBM started caring.

      Correlation is not causation.

      What I lived through, was Linux taking off like a juggernaut, and IBM embracing it as a result. Large corps came along for the ride, they didn't drive it and at best paid for some gas.

      DEVs being paid is simply what it is. The entire scsi/sata stack was originally re-authored by 3ware for example.

      Why?

      To sell stuff, and the guy was an advocate too.

      It's always been this way, under the great wonder of the GPL, blessed be it.

  • datacruncher01  5 hours ago

    Google learned that it's exactly not in in their best interest when they lost their court case against Epic a few years ago which is why they are shifting focus away from open source and moving towards Apple's walled garden approach. If they had locked down their platform similarly as Apple did, Epic would probably have lost it's case for similar reasons.

    Granted, we know Android would not be where it is today without open source contributions.

lokar  10 hours ago

I think this is true, but I also believe the original people who built it are not the people in charge now.

  • pjmlp  8 hours ago

    Like most projects, anyone that thinks Linux or Steam will stay as they are when the generation that started it all is gone, is in for a surprise.