On Friday, 9 January 2015 at 14:43:02 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
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
See my response to Joe above, most devs rely on closed
toolchains. Funny how they all avoid becoming "hostages."
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
I don't see how other devs selling paid patches will affect the
mentioned aspects of OSS devs working on D. Simply claiming that
"it won't work that way" anymore is not an argument.
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 the announcement.
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.
The only ridiculous statement I see here is your claim that
building a desktop/mobile program doesn't also require
"continuous efforts for maintaining and improving that software,
including developer team costs and server h/w costs over time."
Both server and desktop/mobile software are widely considered
worth charging for: it is highly idiosyncratic and
self-rationalizing for you to claim that one is significantly
different from the other.
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
You take money and create mostly closed-source software: those
are the only details that matter in this discussion.
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
Sociomantic has always been generous with the D community, I
don't mean to imply you haven't. But unless you open-source all
your code, you're employing a hybrid closed-source model, exactly
the kind of model you're objecting to here. :) Funny how it's
good for Sociomantic but not anybody else.
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.
Microsoft is an extreme example of product software, most
software product companies didn't connive their way into a
similar monopoly position. Android is the product I keep using
as an example, no "actual effort" there?
If you're such a believer in open-source support models, I look
forward to Sociomantic open-sourcing all their code and then
providing paid hosting and support instead, getting paid only for
the server baby-sitting you claim is worth paying for. I don't
see that happening and we both know why, because your current
service model from selling access to your mostly closed-source
product is just much more economically viable.
You are subject to the same incentives with your hybrid-source
software as you complain about with hybrid models, ie to hold off
on open-sourcing the few libraries you plan on releasing to make
more exclusive money off them in the meantime. As I've said from
the beginning, the decision on when to open-source in my model is
not taken by the developer, it is contractually agreed to ahead
of time based on certain funding and time limits.
You won't get customers in the long term if they feel like
being extorted money. Your proposed scheme does exactly that.
I see no arguments for why that would happen, simply bald
statements with no real reasoning and seemingly ignoring the
funding/time limits involved with my hybrid model.