On Friday, 9 January 2015 at 12:21:35 UTC, Joakim wrote:
To be honest if something like this would ever happen my first
move would be to reach company leadership and discuss possible
full forking of D compiler as a simple matter of ensuring
business safety. This scheme introduces unacceptable amount of
risks for customer.
I see, so some outside devs selling patches to other companies
poses "unacceptable" risk for your company. Funny how such a
stone-age relic move seems to have such an effect on you. ;) In
essence, Sociomantic is already running a forked compiler, D1,
as it isn't publicly maintained anymore, so I'm not sure what
the difference is or why we should care what you do.
It poses unacceptable risk of company becoming hostage of
ecosystem were "buying" closed patches is only way to use the
tool effectively. In software world where even .NET goes
open-source there is simply no reason why would one agree on such
Right now quite some of other developers contribute to D2
toolchain and related projects even if it is not directly used.
It makes sense exactly because project is fully open - there is a
good trust that such work won't get wasted and/or abused and sit
there until its actually needed, encouraging other people to
contribute in the meanwhile. It won't work that way with hybrid
Selling of software in any for is a relict of stone age and we
must help it get forgotten.
Funny, how does Sociomantic make money again? Oh right, by
selling access to their closed-source software. I guess
because it's on a server and the business logic doesn't run on
the customer's device, that's _completely_ different from
"selling of software." ;) Or maybe Sociomantic is about to
open source all their code and go pure FOSS! I look forward to
There are so many ridiculous statements here.
1) Selling services is indeed much different from selling
software and much more honest. When you sell a program you don't
really sell anything of value - it is just bunch of bytes that
costs you nothing to copy. When you sell service you don't just
sell "access" to same software running on the server but
continuous efforts for maintaining and improving that software,
including developer team costs and server h/w costs over time.
This is actually something of value and charging for that is more
widely accepted as just.
2) We don't even sell plain service access - it is more delicate
than that, exactly to ensure that our client don't feel like
product hostages and get encouraged to try with no big
commitment. You can contact our sales department for more details
3) There are indeed plans for open-sourcing at least base
libraries we use. It is taking very long because making something
public in a way that won't hit you back is damn tricky legally
these days and it is blocked in legal department for quite a
while. No announcement because no idea how long may it take.
At the same time offering more commercial support is something
very desired for business and something I'd like to see
extended. Right now pretty much only available option is to
reach Walter personally and agree on some contract with
DigitalMars which is both limited by manpower of a single
person and not advertised in any way.
I have no doubt that you'd rather someone worked for you for
peanuts on a support contract, rather than making more money
off a productized D compiler. But what you should consider is
the latter is likely better for D and your preferred approach
is not preferred by everybody else.
Yes, I am much in favor of paying for actual effort and not
helping make money from nothing like it has happened with
Microsoft. It both more honest from the point of view of
commercial relations and motivates faster development by paying
exactly for stuff that matters. With your proposed scheme best
strategy is to hold off adding new stuff upstream as long as
possible to force more people buy it.
You won't get customers in the long term if they feel like being
extorted money. Your proposed scheme does exactly that.