[HN Gopher] What comes after open source? (2019)
___________________________________________________________________
What comes after open source? (2019)
Author : simonpure
Score : 22 points
Date : 2021-08-07 19:17 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (denisnazarov.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (denisnazarov.com)
| bitwize wrote:
| Telekommunisten.
| ximm wrote:
| Not to be confused with the identically-named article by Steve
| Klabnik from around the same time:
| https://steveklabnik.com/writing/what-comes-after-open-sourc...
| taneq wrote:
| I've always found the, uh, "IP-flexible" environment of Shenzhen
| to be a fascinating insight into what a fully open source world
| would look like. From what I've seen (please correct me if I'm
| wrong!) no energy is wasted on licensing or who you should ask
| for permission, because what are they gonna do to you? And little
| effort is wasted on locking things down, because they'll just
| crack it anyway. If you can make something you just _do it_ , and
| then you ship it and hopefully make some money before someone
| copies it. And the rate of progress is incredible! Mostly because
| of the huge amount of hard work done by the people working in in
| the industry here, but also because there's less time wasted on
| these regulatory questions.
| fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
| Yeah, I think IP creates a local-maxima where it seems
| essential to have IP to have innovation. But, it's not at all
| clear to me that it doesn't simultaneously restrict innovation:
| all the locked down walled gardens, content silos and such make
| it significantly harder for people to recombine inventions in
| unforeseen ways.
| bcrl wrote:
| Patents certainly cause unforeseen damage all the time,
| sometimes with damages with far too many zeros to be
| considered at all reasonable (like what happened to
| Blackberry a few years back). My personal belief regarding
| software is that if a skilled practitioner of the art can
| come up with a particular solution when given similar design
| constraints for solving a problem, the solution should not be
| considered novel and worthy of patent protection. Sadly this
| is not anywhere close to how patents actually work in the
| real world.
| makapuf wrote:
| I'd agree with your definition of novel except for the
| addition "in a minimal timeframe or effort" because else of
| course you can replicate the same outcomes with about the
| same effort.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| Services are bad and libraries are good. (Extra proof: the latter
| can be turned into the former if you really want, but not vice
| versa).
|
| Cryptocurrency doesn't factor into any of this.
| Overton-Window wrote:
| We have open source. Crypto allows for open state. Blockchains
| are databases where everyone is a root user.
| WA wrote:
| Nobody is a root user. Try rm -rf / on a distributed
| blockchain.
| jrm4 wrote:
| Fair. I'm trying to think if "Blockchains are 'no-delete'
| databases where everyone is root" makes sense?
| verdverm wrote:
| You need to account for consensus among many
| Overton-Window wrote:
| Nothing stopping you creating a blockchain that permits
| such, albeit of a little value.
| jrm4 wrote:
| Well, I think "crypto" here means "universally viewable and
| add-only modifiable" database which feels like there might be a
| use for?
| infogulch wrote:
| ed: "consensus-driven publicly-auditable append-only
| database" is actually a pretty decent generalization of
| "crypto", thanks.
| jrm4 wrote:
| Is "consensus-driven" that necessary? I'm thinking how one
| might argue that it's fundamentally an implementation
| detail of "append-only," meaning that you don't really have
| to say it out loud, like "electricity-driven" or
| "cryptography-powered."
| jtolmar wrote:
| A centralized database operating off a write-once-read-
| many drive would be append-only and not consensus-driven,
| and also not really what anyone means by crypto.
|
| A whole lot more efficient though.
| wrnr wrote:
| As a programmer I agree, but for a business a service might
| have a nice mote and offer the right incentives to develop and
| sell a service.
|
| A crypto service is the worst of both worlds, in this case the
| income just goes to the miners.
| thayne wrote:
| And the enegy companies that sell the power for mining, and
| the chip makers that sell chips for mining.
| wrnr wrote:
| But chips and power-plants are harder to create then just
| copying software.
| thayne wrote:
| I'm not sure if I agree that crypto is the future, but I agree
| with most of the rest.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-07 23:00 UTC)