Conversation

Conor White-Sullivan ๐ƒ๐Ÿ”๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
@Conaw
So much of the hard work in design comes with figuring out details of the workflow and conceptual model - often only by months of working with users. Open sourcing actual code for consumer tools is red herring, ignores other contributions to commons
Quote Tweet
Conor White-Sullivan ๐ƒ๐Ÿ”๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
@Conaw
ยท
Replying to @mekarpeles @RoamResearch and @AthensResearch
Open source was totally irrelevant - at least for me. Never needed to read your code, definitely was never going to use. What mattered was you pushed the conceptual frontier.
2
9
Mek
@mekarpeles
I agree there are many valuable forms of contribution: One not needing a resource is not grounds for justifying it be closed. The world is built on resources I, in my privileged position, don't need and which others do. All things equal; show work, share, & enable.
1
Andy Matuschak
@andy_matuschak
I sympathize with Conor hereโ€”it's already so hard to get a tool like this off the ground; adding more constraints (i.e. on production flywheel) seems like asking for trouble. I love that we've found some models that work (e.g. open core); I'd love to see a playbook collection.
1
13
Andy Matuschak
@andy_matuschak
I struggle with this in my own work. It's obvious that if it's to succeed in the long term, Orbit wants to be an open standard with OSS implementations. But it's also obvious that there are enormous path dependencies; it's not at all clear when and how it's best to move to open.
1
9
Andy Matuschak
@andy_matuschak
My current inclination is to rapidly publish sources under restrictive "source available" licenses, then slowly move modules to open licenses from the bottom of the stack upwards as I better understand my path to sustainability. But who knowsโ€ฆ
2
9
Andy Matuschak
@andy_matuschak
I'm intrigued by the promise of "crowdfunded" open-source, but I'm worried about essential irreversibility. e.g. people say "I'll open-source my thing if I hit $X/mo in sponsorship"โ€ฆ but then you trade equity *permanently* for potentially-temporary MRR. Seems like a bad trade.
2
3
Mek
@mekarpeles
I wonder if this is getting into the core of copyright; defining an equitability function between content producers and creators. And the nature of fairness as it pertains to recurring revenue and monopoly.
1
Andy Matuschak
@andy_matuschak
I don't understand what you mean. Maybe you're suggesting that because the interaction with users helps produce the key insights, they should be co-owners? I'm mildly sympathetic to this view, but it seems like a very low-order bit.
1
Mek
@mekarpeles
Yes, I think I believe 3 points 1. Most software is built on volumes of open source infrastructure 2. Yes; sharing source is an investment in public good and insight 3. That access to digital goods (software & academic resources) may be far more equitable than locked & recurring
1
Mek
@mekarpeles
Replying to
@andy_matuschak
@Conaw
and 3 others
I am not convinced that open sourcing a project sacrifices insight. Maybe it makes fundraising more difficult. Maybe open sourcing means more competition; this seems to support progress? Maybe it also kills good ideas. I conceded there are tradeoffs.
1
Show replies