Newsmeldung von slashCAM:Editorials: Editorials: Light Works - Thoughts on the business model of rudi - November 11, 2010 17:50:00 to terminate> with the recent coup, Lightworks as open source is EditShare already remarkable media attention given to become the man with a traditional product launch would never hammer out. Obviously behind the PR idea is still a much larger master plan.
full article
Antwort von Backslash:
Light Works is really open source?
Stupid question all will cry the same, but is written everywhere. That's right!
Or not? At its simplest, is just the first licensing model will be interesting under the Lightworks Open Source and what, or which parts of it at all.
Until now stands only, are the interfaces for the plug-in set for development of open OpenFX.
/
Antwort von DSLR-Freak:
The relevance of the topic in the forum has apparently hardly anyone understood ...
** Does anyone know if the proxy synonymous with Lightworks cut is possible?
Antwort von Jörg:
The relevance of the topic in the forum has apparently hardly anyone understood ... most are probably so serene, not to imitate chickens heap, but to wait for hard facts ...
Which, of course, the presumption and Befürchtungsanhänger not understand.
Antwort von DSLR-Freak:
You see!
Antwort von deti:
The relevance of the topic in the forum has apparently hardly anyone understood ... ... and I am one of over 1700 registered developers. Why should I as a developer s.einer software, such as this contribute? There are still two scenarios:
- The Project is completely free and "Open Source" (that's an important point: the two conditions must be met), then NO ONE deserves immediate and operate all their value with services related to the Project (eg, with consulting, hardware, etc .).
- The Project is commercial and "open source". Here earn less and the majority of developers would work without pay.
Light Works has chosen the second model - and here's the rub: Only those who developed fee-based plug-ins, one of the beneficiaries of the business model. S.der core software development services are not so rewarded. According to the market economics are likely to devote most active developers the lucrative and plugins are the core software can be largely left.
In this respect, raises the question of how Light Works will finance in the future, the development of core software? Where the margin s.Pluginverkauf turn out really significant? How Light Works inspire idealists for the development, next door when others are working against Money?
Currently, the business model leaves me with more questions than clear objectives.
Deti
Antwort von Backslash:
DSLR freak with quote
The relevance of the topic in the forum has apparently hardly anyone understood ...
detis models are simply wrong.
If the entire! Program "Light Works" to Open Source and is explained under a suitable license, such as the GPL is released, is now synonymous for 15 year old code base for all to see and next use. I can adapt and change the source code, and to further develop market 100% commercial, now ported to other platforms and me craft my own business model so completely, without paying a cent synonymous for it. And here we are again with the dilemma of Open Source.
EditShare will not be so stupid and they should be brave but they need to be damn sure is not in many thousand lines of code or to become entangled in any copyrights.
And mimic the very cool and not be clarified first chicken clusters, but which is synonymous with plus or minus thirty degrees quickly to hard facts.
/
Antwort von deti:
detis models are simply wrong. Aha.
If the entire! Program "Light Works" to Open Source and is explained under a suitable license, such as the GPL is released, is now synonymous for 15 year old code base for all to see and next use. I have not spoken of the GPL - why are you doing now?
I can adapt and change the source code, and to further develop market 100% commercial, now ported to other platforms and me craft my own business model so completely, without paying a cent synonymous for it. And here we are again with the dilemma of Open Source. There you have something important in terms of "open source" did not understand: The license makes the difference. The rights holder may continue subject to any rights. In this respect, your statement is true at all.
EditShare will not be so stupid and they should be brave but they need to be damn sure is not in many thousand lines of code or to become entangled in any copyrights. Stupid is only he who does stupid. I would like to reiterate the question of financing the development of core software, off the fee-based plug-ins.
Deti
Antwort von Backslash:
What part of open source have not you understand?
"With open source or free software is all the source code available!" The user of open source software may be:
[List] use the software for any purpose
Check the source code and learn its function
fully disclose the source and spread
the software change and improve, and publish these synonymous [/ list: u: 9e4352c56e]
There are more than 200 open source licenses, but all are equal in terms of use, modification and distribution of the source code.
/
Antwort von deti:
What part of open source have not you understand? You obviously have not understood that the rights holder can prevent a lot of set and what a cross-marketing and use precludes. Could chargeable plug-ins can be prevented because of license terms or synonymous with the use of means of technical measures. Thus, the open source part of the software would be nearly useless. Here, the developers would then synonymous own open-source versions develop the binary-only parts. The ever gives a huge benefit from the rights holder.
Conversely, as the Linux kernel API depending on the license model of the respective kernel driver is limited to the open source model of the kernel for emphasis.
/ Incidentally, this is not a slash and backslash.
Deti
