Le 09-09-16 à 20:00, Chuck Hill a écrit :
On Sep 16, 2009, at 4:48 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Hi Stephane (and all WOrriors),
You make a good argument but think of it another way:
1) WO is not directly making money for apple
2) Open-sourcing could be a money loser for apple: They might lose
a perceived bargaining chip.
There is no financial incentive for Apple to open WO.
I only see two ways that WO will ever be open sourced:
A) An offer is made to purchase WO. Those that see value in it and
make an offer that Apple can't refuse
The last time I looked Apple was not exactly in need of cash. :-)
could then do what they want, which could mean open sourcing it.
Something like this happened with "Squeak" (Apple's in-house
version of Smalltalk) when it was sold to Disney and then open
sourced by Disney. Incidentally "Seaside" which got its life in
Squeak is probably the only interesting competitor to WO. Ruby on
Rails has no "component actions" so it doesn't even come close.
B) The perceived bargaining chips contained in WO related patents
expire - When this happens Apple *might* open source WO but still,
there is no financial incentive to do so.
I perceive Apple's largest problem with WO (and hence the main focus
of any incentive) is finding enough good developers with good WO
skills for its internal needs. I don't have any brilliant ideas on
how to convert that need into something that benefits the larger
WebObjects community, but I can't think of anything else that might
motivate them to make any significant changes.
Yeah, I was thinking of adding a tagline on wocommunity : "Learn WO,
it's a good way to get a job at Apple!". _______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected])
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [email protected]
