---Quote--- Generally however we've found that the cost of open sourcing code for a proprietary product is non-trivial. I know it seems counter-intuitive but consider this: the reality is you can't just toss code over the fence. You have to first scrub it to make sure you have the rights to release it (your question acknowledges this difficulty). You also have to provide resources to answer questions and generally support those who are trying to pick up the code. Typically you have to develop additional documentation as well. Lastly there's the issue of ongoing liability. Large companies have deep pockets. When a company releases a product it at times comes with a warranty which the company is willing to offer because the risk is offset by revenue. There has to be some significant value to the licensor to justify the risk. Make no mistake, whenever a large company converts a product to Open Source it's because that strategy has in some way been positively tied to the bottom line. ---EndQuote---
I'm a strong supporter of the Open Source movement, but I find Danese's comments here very interesting. The things that he says are unquestionably true and point to a large part of the likely reason why even companies which are firendly towards the Free Software movement are often reluctant to open their code.
Hackers need to remember this. Too many times I have heard people attacking companies for not "putting their money where their mouth is" because they support Open Source in their statements and press releases, but continue to produce closed products. It's good to see such a considered view on why you can't always just "throw code over the fence".
I have seen this as well at my own company. We have "clean" code that is our own, and stuff we've got to throw over the fence (GPL). The stuff we don't have to give back never get's the attention that GPL code gets as far as comments and documentation.
i gotta assume your company is distributes (binary or otherwise) software?
otherwise, there's no reason to throw gpl code over the fense. sure sharing is nice, but there's nothing in the license that mandates it. when google patches the hell out of their linux kernels (gpl), they don't have to give a line of it back to any developers or throw it over the fense.
Open Source (Score:4, Insightful)
---Quote---
Generally however we've found that the cost of open sourcing code for a
proprietary product is non-trivial. I know it seems counter-intuitive
but consider this: the reality is you can't just toss code over the
fence. You have to first scrub it to make sure you have the rights to
release it (your question acknowledges this difficulty). You also have
to provide resources to answer questions and generally support those who
are trying to pick up the code. Typically you have to develop
additional documentation as well. Lastly there's the issue of ongoing
liability. Large companies have deep pockets. When a company releases
a product it at times comes with a warranty which the company is willing
to offer because the risk is offset by revenue. There has to be some
significant value to the licensor to justify the risk. Make no mistake,
whenever a large company converts a product to Open Source it's because
that strategy has in some way been positively tied to the bottom line.
---EndQuote---
I'm a strong supporter of the Open Source movement, but I find Danese's comments here very interesting. The things that he says are unquestionably true and point to a large part of the likely reason why even companies which are firendly towards the Free Software movement are often reluctant to open their code.
Hackers need to remember this. Too many times I have heard people attacking companies for not "putting their money where their mouth is" because they support Open Source in their statements and press releases, but continue to produce closed products. It's good to see such a considered view on why you can't always just "throw code over the fence".
Re:Open Source (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Open Source (Score:1)
otherwise, there's no reason to throw gpl code over the fense. sure sharing is nice, but there's nothing in the license that mandates it. when google patches the hell out of their linux kernels (gpl), they don't have to give a line of it back to any developers or throw it over the fense.