I don't think "open source" needs to apologize for anything. Making profit from it wasn't ever the goal for most projects. That you cannot derive profit from it may have to do with your business model.
You could offer support for the product you are offering or maybe you can just write proprietary software. To think that there is a problem with open source as a concept sound like a pretty alien conclusion to be honest.
Most open source projects don't have corporate backing obviously. The large ones that are heavily in use? Sure, because their developers use it too.
> Open source projects end up to be designed by committee [..]
I can agree on that point, but again, that is a minority of project that have become very successful.
> En-masse community memebers get nothing from contrubuting to project
That is the point of any free contribution. I know that can get exhausting and that there are ungrateful users that can ruin it for you, but I still don't see how open source is the problem and not your disposition to it.
I think the article overall is not convincing. Maybe our expectations are too high, but whose aren't in todays software world. Without open source it just isn't possible to let developers teach themselves as efficient as they can do now. That these costs are externalized by companies and that they might not give back enough is the nature of voluntary work. But it certainly not undercutting some imagined market.
You could offer support for the product you are offering or maybe you can just write proprietary software. To think that there is a problem with open source as a concept sound like a pretty alien conclusion to be honest.
Most open source projects don't have corporate backing obviously. The large ones that are heavily in use? Sure, because their developers use it too.
> Open source projects end up to be designed by committee [..]
I can agree on that point, but again, that is a minority of project that have become very successful.
> En-masse community memebers get nothing from contrubuting to project
That is the point of any free contribution. I know that can get exhausting and that there are ungrateful users that can ruin it for you, but I still don't see how open source is the problem and not your disposition to it.
I think the article overall is not convincing. Maybe our expectations are too high, but whose aren't in todays software world. Without open source it just isn't possible to let developers teach themselves as efficient as they can do now. That these costs are externalized by companies and that they might not give back enough is the nature of voluntary work. But it certainly not undercutting some imagined market.