
Face it: There's no money in open source - mpbm
http://www.infoworld.com/article/3032647/open-source-tools/face-it-theres-no-money-in-open-source.html
======
jfaucett
This article seems to conflate "openness" with "open source". As long as
something has a free enough license it qualifies as open source in my book.
Anyone else can come along grab that software and do everything that the
licenses allow with it.

As to "Where the model (open source) starts to resemble “evil” is when it
pretends to an openness that simply isn’t there."

evil? I could care less how many different organizations or people are
contributing to an open source project, is "openness" as the author defines it
relevant at all, to anyone? (for most of those projects mentioned in the
article the license is pretty liberal - apache 2.0)

I would have liked to have read at least some mentions of dispirate revenue
models for utilizing open source software that have specificaly failed,
unfortunately none of that here. Does anyone know of some?

------
mpbm
Matt Asay's headline is a bit click-baity since he concludes "That’s where the
real money is: proprietary value built on top of open source." So what he
means is that it's hard to sell just the raw open source stuff by itself.

This is a follow up to [http://www.infoworld.com/article/3032120/open-source-
tools/v...](http://www.infoworld.com/article/3032120/open-source-tools/vcs-
who-miss-the-point-of-open-source-shouldnt-fund-it.html)

