Comments on: Lies, damn lies and Sourceforge statistics http://boldlyopen.com/2007/04/04/lies-damn-lies-and-sourceforge-statistics/ To boldly muse about Open Source Sat, 20 Aug 2011 22:38:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Joseph A di Paolantonio http://boldlyopen.com/2007/04/04/lies-damn-lies-and-sourceforge-statistics/comment-page-1/#comment-49580 Joseph A di Paolantonio Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:06:21 +0000 http://www.rabellino.it/blog/2007/04/04/lies-damn-lies-and-sourceforge-statistics/#comment-49580 Your point about active vs. inactive projects on SourceForge.net is well taken. We are currently tracking over 40 projects related to data management, data analytics and business intelligence, though not all are available through SourceForge. Of these, approximately half were announced in 2005; in the six years prior in which we were looking at open source data management and analytics projects, there were only a handful. Out of these projects... - four have merged into another project and are still quite active, and still available as stand-alone products - one has been purchased by a proprietary vendor, though is still somewhat active - 10 projects haven't released anything new in over a year, five of these only had one release of beta files - two never released any files, and have been removed from our list after stagnating in "planning" for two years - one of the first ETL projects was very active for two years, but has languished since 2003 - one project has been removed from SourceForge - one appears to have gone proprietary Your point about active vs. inactive projects on SourceForge.net is well taken. We are currently tracking over 40 projects related to data management, data analytics and business intelligence, though not all are available through SourceForge. Of these, approximately half were announced in 2005; in the six years prior in which we were looking at open source data management and analytics projects, there were only a handful.

Out of these projects…

- four have merged into another project and are still quite active, and still available as stand-alone products
- one has been purchased by a proprietary vendor, though is still somewhat active
- 10 projects haven’t released anything new in over a year, five of these only had one release of beta files
- two never released any files, and have been removed from our list after stagnating in “planning” for two years
- one of the first ETL projects was very active for two years, but has languished since 2003
- one project has been removed from SourceForge
- one appears to have gone proprietary

]]> By: Calvin Cunningham http://boldlyopen.com/2007/04/04/lies-damn-lies-and-sourceforge-statistics/comment-page-1/#comment-48407 Calvin Cunningham Sun, 08 Apr 2007 08:00:39 +0000 http://www.rabellino.it/blog/2007/04/04/lies-damn-lies-and-sourceforge-statistics/#comment-48407 can i get a joost invite. my name is Staff Sergeant Calvin Cunnungham calvin.cunningham@yahoo.com can i get a joost invite. my name is Staff Sergeant Calvin Cunnungham

calvin.cunningham@yahoo.com

]]> By: Gregor J. Rothfuss http://boldlyopen.com/2007/04/04/lies-damn-lies-and-sourceforge-statistics/comment-page-1/#comment-47476 Gregor J. Rothfuss Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:54:54 +0000 http://www.rabellino.it/blog/2007/04/04/lies-damn-lies-and-sourceforge-statistics/#comment-47476 i was recently trying to do some work on feedvalidator, but sf.net mailing lists have so much spam that i lost all desire to do so within minutes. i was recently trying to do some work on feedvalidator, but sf.net mailing lists have so much spam that i lost all desire to do so within minutes.

]]> By: Henri Yandell http://boldlyopen.com/2007/04/04/lies-damn-lies-and-sourceforge-statistics/comment-page-1/#comment-47395 Henri Yandell Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:25:56 +0000 http://www.rabellino.it/blog/2007/04/04/lies-damn-lies-and-sourceforge-statistics/#comment-47395 It's his next paragraph that I find more interesting: "So IBM hasn't figured out what the rest of us know with ever-increasing certitude: it's possible to monetize open source directly. Ironically, it becomes easier the more freedom that imbues the software. Even more ironically, this is so because companies like IBM don't want to touch software that is free - it threatens their proprietary software." So here we are, arguing for the GPL, and the argument is on how it lets you directly monetize open source. Basically - "Hey IBM, open source your stuff under GPL and you can make more money off of it!". I wonder how they would directly monetize another GPL product. How would IBM directly monetize the kernel? He describes the GPL as having more freedom - which is odd if it's all about directly monetizing and protecting your own product from being abused; and then he says something that is completely true. People don't want to touch the GPL, it threatens their own proprietary work. GPL is increasingly about business strategy and defending your product - not about open source. It's a great license for that - if I want to defend my product I'm going to be GPL'ing it. If I want to provide something to the community for maximum use, I'm definitely not. Then I'd have the choice of either BSD'ing it, or using AL and losing out on any GPL zealots (but choosing BSD would probably have lost them anyway). It’s his next paragraph that I find more interesting:

“So IBM hasn’t figured out what the rest of us know with ever-increasing certitude: it’s possible to monetize open source directly. Ironically, it becomes easier the more freedom that imbues the software. Even more ironically, this is so because companies like IBM don’t want to touch software that is free – it threatens their proprietary software.”

So here we are, arguing for the GPL, and the argument is on how it lets you directly monetize open source. Basically – “Hey IBM, open source your stuff under GPL and you can make more money off of it!”. I wonder how they would directly monetize another GPL product. How would IBM directly monetize the kernel?

He describes the GPL as having more freedom – which is odd if it’s all about directly monetizing and protecting your own product from being abused; and then he says something that is completely true. People don’t want to touch the GPL, it threatens their own proprietary work.

GPL is increasingly about business strategy and defending your product – not about open source. It’s a great license for that – if I want to defend my product I’m going to be GPL’ing it. If I want to provide something to the community for maximum use, I’m definitely not. Then I’d have the choice of either BSD’ing it, or using AL and losing out on any GPL zealots (but choosing BSD would probably have lost them anyway).

]]>