Originally posted by kvuj
View Post
Also, open source was invented and prospered in advanced market economies, which is a sign that it creates value in a market-sense. Part of that is due to the licence: you can contribute code, which costs money in terms of developer time, to a project. Your contribution may be extremely valuable to you, such as Facebook's work on low-memory management, but it is useless without the rest of the project of which it is a piece. The licence guarantees that the rest of the project, which enables your contribution, can't be taken away, so it removes the risk of contributing. And if it is cheaper to contribute a few improvements but not reinvent the entire kernel, you get much more bang for your buck. And probably each contribution binds you more tightly to the project. Economically, sustainable open source projects make sense. They are not a socialist enterprise, they are a capitalist enterprise: they are simply more efficient, in a market sense, for some types of projects.
I am not sure this is true of the former MDN though. Perhaps the documents should have been sent to Wikipedia, which is also thriving, but under a different model. I don't quite know how Wikipedia works as well as it does, but the facts speak for themselves.
Leave a comment: