SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
It's increasingly hard to see how software freedom is present in cases when there's no realistic community access to source code. The barriers these days can come from complex codebases that no single mind can grasp or use of open-but-closed models.
As a consequence, OSI receives more complaints from community members about "open yet closed" than any other topic. Companies of all sizes who loudly tout their love for open source yet withhold source code from non-customers generate the most enquiries of this type. When approached, OSI contacts these companies on behalf of the community but the response is always that they are "within their rights" under the relevant open source licenses and can do what they please.
[...] Interestingly it's common that the companies involved obtained the source code they are monetising under an open source license, while they themselves own the copyrights to a tiny percentage of the code. They can be considered to have enclosed the commons, enjoying the full benefits of open source themselves — and celebrating it — but excluding others from collaboration on the same terms.
Source: Is Open Yet Closed Still OK?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:40PM (1 child)
It's not the lack of ownership that causes the tragedy of the commons, it's the fact that the consequences are shared rather than apportioned based upon use. If each person knew that they'd be on the hook for a portion of the consequences, it would lead to a different outcome where there was some mindfulness not to use up the resource.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @04:09PM
The consequences of poor management are apportioned to the owner.
The consequences of damage are apportioned to the perpetrator.