8 ms·
While I do respect your opinion, I disagree. I think that arrogance is when a single vendor tries to single-handedly redefine open-source to fit their business
by peterfarkas 3y ago
While I do respect your opinion, I disagree.
I think that arrogance is when a single vendor tries to single-handedly redefine open-source to fit their business needs better. Not just a license, but the definition itself.
A quote from the MongoDB CEO: "MongoDB was built by MongoDB. There was no prior art. We didn't open source it for help; we open sourced it as a freemium strategy". [1]
Whether the OSI was arrogant or not, I really don't want this person to define opensource.
[1]: https://techmonitor.ai/leadership/strategy/mongodb-ceo-interview https://techmonitor.ai/leadership/strategy/mongodb-ceo-inter...
- that_guy_iain 3y agoI am not really sure what your issue is. What you think open-source as freemium isn’t a model? If it wasn’t for copy-left licenses that forced companies to release code that they used to create their products we wouldn’t have Linux in its current state. In a world, where many products are cloud based it seems fair and within the current model of open source to force code sharing.