|
| ▲ | embedding-shape 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Weird to release 1.0 without it. What are they waiting for? Hmm, I've been under the impression that at one point they said it'd be 100% FOSS by the time 1.0 hits, but maybe I misunderstand/misremember the details. But I remember they'd said it'd be FOSS in connection with 1.0, seems weird to do it this way instead of waiting until it's all FOSS then cut 1.0. |
| |
|
| ▲ | ktm5j an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A lot of people beg to differ. And it's their decision, not yours on when to open source. They have their reasons even if they aren't explaining them to you. |
|
| ▲ | redlewel 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This exactly. Doesn't scream confidence that its still closed upon release. |
| |
| ▲ | usef- an hour ago | parent [-] | | Why? The creators have a strong open source background and it's work to properly open source. |
|
|
| ▲ | fluidcruft 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| People to tune in to the conference, probably. |
|
| ▲ | bourbonproof 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I think they are waiting for a wild success in adoption, and if that doesn't happen they can use the IP to pivot to something else without giving the core away to anyone for free/as open-source. |
