Launchpad is going open source.

[Frak]

http://news.launchpad.net/podcast/launchpod-15-launchpads-going-open-source

And if somebody asks: No, Launchpad has never before been Open Source.

[cardinals_fan]

Wow.

[Frak]

Also, before anyone asks this: The reason why Canonical didn't before Open Source it was because they didn't want hundreds of people starting their own launchpad system without any centralized synchronizing system. This way, people could just use the central launchpad as thousands of projects could just collaborate in one place, much like sourceforge in a way.

[-grubby]

That is great. Now, I'll be able to look at the Launchpad source code and do absolutely nothing with it! That's what I've always wanted!

[Frak]

That is great. Now, I'll be able to look at the Launchpad source code and do absolutely nothing with it! That's what I've always wanted!
Aye!

:D

[Kernel Sanders]

What, they are FINALLY doing this YEARS after promising to? Better late than never :lol:

[gnomeuser]

Except it's not, parts are not being liberated such as Soyuz (the distribution management component) which I feel is a major shame, especially given that it's a buggy system and would greatly benefit from openness.

Additionally instead of taking more steps down the path of openness, Canonical continues to expand their developments in proprietary software (http://www.canonical.com/projects/landscape).

I would like so see Canonical eat their own poison (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy).

[Kernel Sanders]

The simple fact is that propriatory software is where the money is.

It will take a very very good business model to be making the kind of money propriatory software companies are making.

1) Code something
2) Make it awesome and something people want/think they need.
3) More profit than an open source business model

Sad but true :(

[-grubby]

1) Code something
2) Make it awesome
3) Make it open source
4) Watch as people rebrand your product and sell it, even if you are in the credits, consumers don't care.
5) ???
6) NOT PROFIT!

[gnomeuser]

The simple fact is that propriatory software is where the money is.

It will take a very very good business model to be making the kind of money propriatory software companies are making.

1) Code something
2) Make it awesome and something people want/think they need.
3) More profit than an open source business model

Sad but true :(

Funny (http://www.forbes.com/home/technology/2008/01/24/fastest-growing-technology-tech-fasttech08-cx_jr_pm_0124fastintro.html), Red Hat are positioned as the 11th fastest growing Tech company and they are developing all their stuff in the open (the few closed bits like Satelite have been opened and nutured into successful and valuable Free Software projects). The money is not in proprietary development, it's in support contracts. Giving people the freedom to use and adapt the tools can pretty much just get you more contributors and more paying customers.

Happily, fact

[Vadi]

1) Code something
2) Make it awesome
3) Make it open source
4) Watch as people rebrand your product and sell it, even if you are in the credits, consumers don't care.
5) ???
6) NOT PROFIT!

They don't even have to rebrand it. They can use embed it for other purposes and give no credit.

At any rate... there probably will be a few launchpads of their own, "just because" people will be able to - and at best, they'll be missing out on the site-wide collaboration and etc. I for one won't be contributing if I'll have to make another launchpad account, have my karma separate, have the translations not auto-suggest.

[Kernel Sanders]

Funny (http://www.forbes.com/home/technology/2008/01/24/fastest-growing-technology-tech-fasttech08-cx_jr_pm_0124fastintro.html), Red Hat are positioned as the 11th fastest growing Tech company and they are developing all their stuff in the open (the few closed bits like Satelite have been opened and nutured into successful and valuable Free Software projects). The money is not in proprietary development, it's in support contracts. Giving people the freedom to use and adapt the tools can pretty much just get you more contributors and more paying customers.

Happily, fact

You are actually backing up my point:



It will take a very very good business model to be making the kind of money propriatory software companies are making


Red Hat are doing well and long may it continue, but open source companies will NEVER make the kind of money that propriatory software companies are making. They can't.

I actually can't fathom a business model that would allow you to code something awesome, open source it, and make the kind of money the big boys are making from their propriatory projects.

Propriatory software companies will always dominate the landscape sadly. Red Hat are doing well, but compare them to the propriatory software companies ahead of them and they don't compare. Not even close.

Open Source is a fantasic ideal and something I strongly support. However, that doesn't alter the fact that if I wanted to get rich and compete with the big boys open sourcing my code isn't the way to go.

[Vadi]

Look at Red Hat's vs Novells revenue, gnomeuser. Then you'll understand...