Let's say with your genius, you discovered an algorithm that would do something very incredible (like say compress files at a very incredible rate).
Would you open source it and let other companies make money out of it or close source it and make a company of your own and make riches?
lets say, you find a way to subtly shill shit tv shows on /g.
would you do it every day??
Closed source. I'm not a Sup Forums pleb so I would want to be rewarded for my hard work.
No because I don't get paid to.
This thread is about open sourcing novel software.
If I could choose between your two options: Open Source, but GPL and not MIT. To keep it Open Source, and to avoid people making money out of it.
If I could choose a third way: Make it open source but only for non-commercial usage. For commercial use u would still need to buy an incredible expensive license.
And I would pay everyone who leaks illegal commercial usage a nice amount of money, so I can fuck those companies.
If its this incredible, you can identify it pretty easy, even if its closed source software that uses it.(In this example).
>This thread is about open sourcing novel software.
you would be 100% retarded if you open sourced anything of value. If you invent anything worthwhile, you should patent it and sell it to companies or try to monetize it yourself
>>(((54975461)))
...
RHEL model :^)
You could just ban capitalism, wont work for the future anyways. When Computers/robots do our whole work, only 0,0001% of humans will have money, all others are unemployed cause theres just no work, so they're poor. And then they will fuck up all others.
That easy. And yes, I would like to live like this, cause it would make things A LOT easier.
The freetard who discovered it would close source it, other freetards around him will cry murder because everyone else wants a free lunch.
1. Patent it
2. License it to Apple only
3. Drink Winbabby and Ganoo tears
but if you closedsourced your invention, you could become one of the 5% who'll be able to afford AI and robots.
Dual licensing, best of both worlds
Yeah, and then get murdered from the other 95% that die otherwise, no thanks.
Beside that I wouldnt be able to live with that, beeing an asshole. Probably one of the few moral fags
I would release it, likely under a copy left licence. I have no need or want for massive amounts money and don't think the corporate life would be for me.
You can be a cool hipster startup anonymous.
I'd sell it to Google
I'd write an open access paper about it and get some $$$ from research grant at university. Maybe get a phd by doing this. AFAIK algorithms can't be patented same as math formulas.
If there's scarcity, there's still something you can do that the robots are unable to take care of at the moment. If there's no scarcity, everything is free and you don't need a job.
You commie fags have been saying automation will destroy jobs for centuries, and the evidence has been overwhelmingly against you. The same goes for "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer."
Read up on the incentive problem (without private property there's no reason to produce anything beyond what you need to subsist) and the economic calculation problem (without freely set prices, there's no supply and demand information available for you to choose what to produce) and stop being a commie faggot.
Closed source for a while, later open source it.
this
or use BSD and sell it, everybody else selling it would get ddossed by illegal behaviour
>without private property
read up on what communism means
>without freely set prices
read up on what communism means
I'd completely open source it, because I'm not an entrepreneur and don't care about money.
I have my 9 to 5 and I'm happy with it.
>reading
kill yourself
Just play GTA like any other normal person
>avoid people making money out of it.
If you release it with GPL companies can literally take all of it and sell it.
It means collective ownership of the means of production. When I said private property you can take that to mean private ownership of capital. Your personal possessions bullshit doesn't in any way help solve those problems.
Sure, as long as they release their modifications and any software they use it in as GPL as well.
Erlich Bachman, is your refrigerator running?
This is Mike Hunt
I'd make the algorithm totally free(libre), along with the source for an application that utilizes it for its intended purpose, then charge money for both of them.
You seem to be laboring under the common misconception that free-libre = free-gratis. That is not the case. You most certainly can charge money for your application of your source code, as well as the code itself and still have it be 'free' software. You need only to include the code so that the end user can modify the application and algorithm to suit their needs. That's the spirit of free software; not making everything free as in $0, but free as in the freedom to modify the software you paid for make it do what you want it to do.
I'd open source it until someone gives me 1 Billion dollars
close source just to piss off open source autists
I would utilize a system in which anyone could incorporate said compression, but I would charge royalty fees for any OS or program that incorporated it. 0.2% of total price of the software or hardware per sale.
I think that's fair. If it's free (no ads) I would allow it to be used on freeware.
You're acting like those faggot SJWs do when you refute their arguments.
>educate yourself
At first no. I would profit from it and using that profit I would develop an even better one and when its done release the old one as GPLv3
Find a business model for free software then smartass, you will sell once, everybody else will download from tpb.
I'll do both, once I profit enough I'll make it open, when the company is solid enough to take competition and eventually benefit from the forks or derivative products
pretty much what is said in , if it really was worth anything
if it was just an experimentation that seemed to work, like the paq series compressor by mahoney, i would just public domain it once it reaches a stable state and the code is clean enough
Closed source for a bit (a year or two), then open source it under MIT.
It works the same as any other business model in which you charge money for a bunch of 1s and 0s, the only difference is that anyone that makes changes needs to make their changes publicly available.
ALL software suffers from digital copying problems, it doesn't matter if the source code is available or not. All that changes in a free software model is that people can innovate and create new solutions with access to the source and don't have to wait for me to decide their feature request is "worthy" of my time to be included in the software. This is a GREAT thing
This won't work unless you have other people who put their stake into your business.
kek. Happy I read about those recently
It does matter, it is easier to make proprietary clones from source code than reverse engineer binary files. Most free software devs are poor or work for prop soft devs. I am not convinced that there is a good business model for free software.
One problem - Not everyone likes breaking the law. However, under the GPL, someone can redistribute your software, (along with its source code, which would be a requirement,) for $0.00 and it would be completely legal. Not as many people would have moral problems with downloading your software for free because no matter what you do, someone else will make it available for free legally.
yes but you can't make money like said, you will sell once, everybody else will download for free from some other site or piratebay
I would license it as AGPL
Do tell what you don't consider shit, you Television expert you
>Closed source, patent n stuff
>Won't give shares to a pothead memer
>get shit rich
>leave the patents and enter in history as savior of technology and become a reddit god a la elon musk.
>putting anything under metastasizing cancer trojan GPL license.
Why not do both?
dual license
u
a
l
l
i
c
e
n
s
e
Im not a dev so i dont really care about licences.
But if they modify your code they have to release it to benefit the entire community. Where is the mistake?
They only have to release the changes it if they distribute it
I feel like the GPL license is force memeing itself, by forcing anyone who forks you to also release it under the same license.
>You used some functions of this project library? Sorry dude, you don't get to choose, Daddy RMS wants you to use the GPL license, for your freedom, you know...
make it closed source, license it and get fucktons of cash, then when im rich enough i make it open source and LMAO at the licensees
That show is getting horrible. I can't stand the cringey monica character, and her drama conversations with Richard. I don't give a shit about their relationship issues, I don't know why they have to add them in (Make them more relateable I guess?)
im still ok with GPL
How would you even check if a company is using your code or not?
On the other hand thats pretty fucking stupid..
So is BSD license the way to go?
Go away Gavin
I don't know the difference between modified BSD and MIT license but they are closer to the idea of "free / opensource" in my mind.
I don't (can't) publish the stuff I do at uni but I don't care about my shit tier projects so I put those on github. Since it's hobby-tier I doubt anybody will use them to make money, so I chose MIT (because of the cool name).
But I once interned in a small company and the truth is that they don't give two shit about copy-pasting whatever they find on the net, what ever the license, if they can use it, they'll do. And of course they, they hide their shitty freshman tier algorithms while putting meme names on them to convince hipsters giving them money.
License don't really matter in my opinion, but I don't want to feed the ego of a old software extremist beard man.