High-End Lightworks Video Editor Finally Says Why They Didn't Go Open-Source Yet

[JustRob]

Even free has a price and cost - when giving a gift is expensive the cost must be amortized, even if everyone improves it for free what little would they retain of it to fund any future costs. I presume it's best to milk the cow before sending it to the butcher.

It's a complicated mashup, like a mamihlapinatapai Keynesian beauty contest, with a number of other things going on.

[lyamc]

What a narrow minded ignorant.

https://fund.blender.org/

Ironic that you would call him ignorant

"After the Internet bubble burst in the early 2000s, the source code became available under GNU GPL on October 13th 2002, thanks to a spectacular fundraising campaign – marking the start of Blender as the popular Free and Open Source 3D creation suite it is today."

Good luck securing that funding for something during the COVID.

[Volta]

Ironic that you would call him ignorant

"After the Internet bubble burst in the early 2000s, the source code became available under GNU GPL on October 13th 2002, thanks to a spectacular fundraising campaign – marking the start of Blender as the popular Free and Open Source 3D creation suite it is today."

Good luck securing that funding for something during the COVID.

It seems you have no clue. Nobody is talking about funding for making Lightwork Open Source (if you were able to read you would realize they didn't go Open Source yet, because of code cleanups not because of funds). Blender earns 93 000 euros monthly and it's very successful Open Source project. The point is you can earn money while being Open Source same time. Get some reading comprehension skills first, because you're spreading bullshit.

[Volta]

And here, folks, is why stuff doesn't get open sourced: sloppy coding practices lead to messy code where no one can be sure putting it up in the open doesn't expose you to patent infringement, license violations and such.
That is why we don't have more open source stuff, not because companies are evil.

This is also indirect prove closed source software is unholy mess.

[lyamc]

It seems you have no clue. Nobody is talking about funding for making Lightwork Open Source

If people want Lightworks to become open source faster, that's the way to do it. Given enough time, I'm sure they'll do it anyways, but how much time it takes will depend on how much money they have to spend on something that isn't going to be obviously economically feasible.

If you only leave a link and an insult, then you're the one to blame for any misunderstandings.

[Volta]

If people want Lightworks to become open source faster, that's the way to do it. Given enough time, I'm sure they'll do it anyways, but how much time it takes will depend on how much money they have to spend on something that isn't going to be obviously economically feasible.

If you only leave a link and an insult, then you're the one to blame for any misunderstandings.

If you would read the article there wouldn't be any misunderstandings. The article states clear about their position about going Open Source. However, I'm sorry for being harsh.

[bug77]

This is also indirect prove closed source software is unholy mess.

Not always and it doesn't have to be about the whole project.
It's just that proprietary solutions tend to be humongous^* (ok, that's definitely a kind of mess), so that the sale guys can tick everything on the box. And a single iffy module in the whole solution is enough for the legal department to block you from going open.

^*Remember when Microsoft had to come up with a virtual file system for git that was faking a git pull (defeating most of the purpose of a DVCS imho), because their Windows code base was bringing git to its knees?

[wizard69]

Also, corporate officers rarely are specific because what they say can be used against them or the company if someone decides to bring a lawsuit. Or worse, can cause investigations in publicly traded companies - eg: Elon Musk.

A lot of people simply don't understand this. When speaking officially as a corporate office every word you say can potentially sink the ship.

As for Open source I really doubt it will happen with the possible exception that the company is about to go under. I comes down to being able to feed your staff and self with competitive salaries.

[sophisticles]

What you suggest is piracy. Releasing the source code does not magically make something "free". In theory to a skilled reverse engineer, a compiled binary can happily be modified... does that mean they can just run all software without paying for it?

You, and the losers that upvoted you, don't seem to understand what "open source" means. It literally means that the source code is freely available for anyone to see, modify and do whatever he/she wants with it.

Some open source licenses, like the GPL, require that you release any modifications you make under the same license, but it's not possible to "pirate" open source software. This is why distros like Oracle Linux, Scientific Linux, CentOS, et al can exist.

[sophisticles]

What a narrow minded ignorant.

https://fund.blender.org/

Did you bother to read through the link you so blindly posted as some sort of silly "proof"? The link clearly states they have 20 developers that costs them $115,000 per month (side note, that works out to an average salary of $69,000/yr, peanuts by developer standards) and this month they have raised $107,247, meaning they are $7,753 in the red this month, and that's with all those contributors, including some big name companies.

Yeah, open source is a real gold mine.