View Single Post
Benson's Avatar
Posts: 4,930 | Thanked: 2,272 times | Joined on Oct 2007
#22
Originally Posted by Picklesworth View Post
Corporations can easily profit on open source, but they are afraid to because it is such a strange idea. What they need to realize is that software should not be considered a finite product, but a service. Microsoft, for example, is surprisingly close to that philosophy, selling "licenses" as opposed to actual products. With that in mind, it might not be a far cry for them to open source Windows with a beefed up license.
For microsoft, I think that would be a far cry; but in principle, and without corporate traditions and cultures, sure. But why do you call that open source? It's not OSD, and I'm not sure what you hope to gain by broadening the term so.
Depending on the intent of the software, this philosophy can change. I do not think it makes the same sense for games, for example, since they are generally shorter-lived creative works. Having said that, many developers do a fine job opening up their engines, attracting piles of positive attention to the name and themselves, but keeping the game's content as a commercial item.
Indeed; it seems clear that game engines are software, and game contents are creative works; this sorta scheme works well.
I think what it comes down to, for developers, is a simple question asked in every industry: Do you care about making a great profit, or a great product?
I think you're dead wrong; no-one is in business for their health. They're always after the greatest profit possible. Making a great product (and insuring you make a profit when people use it) is one way to make a great profit.