Authoritative Viewpoints on OOP

[the.weavster]

After that, unless the community could miraculously rally and organise themselves to take over the development, essentially reviewing, testing, and implementing the continued efforts, the project is only going to be abandoned, or end up as hotchpotch.

Case in point, the MoSync development kit. It was backed by the MySQL founders, and was meant to be an open-source development tool to target multiple mobile platforms, including Windows Phone, iOS, Android, and many more. Initial development was promising, and user-adoption very swift, with numerous apps successfully published on the various app stores.

Unfortunately, after eight years, the project flatlined in 2013 due to bankruptcy, leaving thousands of users in the lurch. The official websites and forums are gone, but the GitHub repository remains, untouched for the last two years, without any community initiative to revive it.

MoSync didn't run on any open source OS, that seems to matter if you want the open source community to contribute to your project. It's cross-platform support was also patchy and there were just better alternatives available.

[said]

Interesting thread and discussions, thank you TI and all contributors your presentation and arguments are of high standard

IMHO i find encapsulation to be the most important feature offered by OO, once this is delivered by a procedural language such as PB, thru namespaces and limited scopes (modules in PB) then procedural paradigm is more productive and easier to maintain

[TI-994A]

Thank you for your time!

Interesting thread and discussions, thank you TI and all contributors your presentation and arguments are of high standard

You're most welcome.

MoSync didn't run on any open source OS, that seems to matter if you want the open source community to contribute to your project. It's cross-platform support was also patchy and there were just better alternatives available.

Whatever the reasons, it simply demonstrates further shortcomings of the open-source model.

[the.weavster]

Whatever the reasons, it simply demonstrates further shortcomings of the open-source model.

Does it? Better projects gain traction, inferior ones wither on the vine and that's a shortcoming of the open source model? Mmm... That wouldn't happen in any other environment then?

[TI-994A]

Whatever the reasons, it simply demonstrates further shortcomings of the open-source model.

Does it? Better projects gain traction, inferior ones wither on the vine and that's a shortcoming of the open source model? Mmm... That wouldn't happen in any other environment then?

Of course it would; but the lure of the open-source concept is the supposed ability of the community to improve the product and continue development if the principal developers were to ever drop the ball.

But that's clearly a misconception.

In the case of MoSync, it wasn't a lack of adoption, but a lack of funding that ultimately killed it. When they flatlined, they had a formidable user and contributor community, who were desperately petitioning for its revival, but who were unfortunately ill-equipped to revive it themselves.

That's a failure of the open-source model; just because it's open source doesn't mean that anyone could manage it, or that it would live on perpetually.

[Danilo]

but the lure of the open-source concept is the supposed ability of the community to improve the product and continue development if the principal developers were to ever drop the ball.

But that's clearly a misconception.

Actually people contribute while the project is active. OpenSource is not just for projects that come to an end.
That means developing the project itself does not depend on 1 or 2 people. Everybody can fork it, enhance it, fix bugs,
and make a request to merge it into the main project. The maintainer has the control what goes into the main version.
If something does not get accepted for merging, you can continue to use your own version with the changes you made.


- https://help.github.com/articles/using-pull-requests/
- https://help.github.com/categories/collaborating/

That's a failure of the open-source model; just because it's open source doesn't mean that anyone could manage it, or that it would live on perpetually.

Additionally to people contributing to the project while it's actively developed, there is at least a chance it continues,
if the main developer dies, looses interest, or a company stops business for other reasons. With closed-source
products, the product just stops to get new versions, and becomes obsolete after some time. Then, it just disappears
and the former users have to buy a new product. Happens all the time.

[TI-994A]

Actually people contribute while the project is active. OpenSource is not just for projects that come to an end. That means developing the project itself does not depend on 1 or 2 people. Everybody can fork it, enhance it, fix bugs, and make a pull request to merge it into the main branch. The maintainer has the control what goes into the official version.

Absolutely; but only for active projects.

Additionally to people contributing to the project while it's actively developed, there is at least a chance it continues, if the main developer dies, looses interest, or a company stops business for other reasons. With closed-source products, the product just stops to get new versions, and becomes obsolete after some time. Then, it just disappears and the former users have to buy a new product. Happens all the time.

There's always a chance for anything.

There's a chance that the users of open-source projects won't be able to continue them once they're abandoned, forcing them to adopt something else.

And there's also a chance that developers of closed-source applications would release them to the community once they decide to discontinue development, allowing the product to live on.

All hypotheticals that shouldn't detract from the defective open-source promise.

[Danilo]

[Thorium]

Open Source just means the source is open for everyone to read. Nothing more. How it's developed and how money is generated is a different story and there are many different models that work.

For example paid support is very common.

With Space Engineers we have the first major game going open source without actualy changing the business model. You still need to buy the game, you just get the source as extra. It's extremly great as the community can contribute with bug fixes. Nothing else realy changes.

[TI-994A]

Open Source just means the source is open for everyone to read.

Not quite. By definition of the term, open source could simply denote that the source code is open. But by definition of the model, open source projects should freely allow the distribution and re-distribution of their works and derived works without any compensation in return, bar proper accreditation.

Space Engineers is not being released under the open-source model.

[Dude]

You still need to buy the game, you just get the source as extra.

Or you can download the source and compile it for free instead, and not pay at all. That's open-source.

[Danilo]

You first need a valid license for Space Engineers
- http://www.spaceengineersgame.com/eula.html


- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissiv ... re_licence
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Gener ... ic_License
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_ ... e_software

[Thorium]

Open Source just means the source is open for everyone to read.

Not quite. By definition of the term, open source could simply denote that the source code is open. But by definition of the model, open source projects should freely allow the distribution and re-distribution of their works and derived works without any compensation in return, bar proper accreditation.

Space Engineers is not being released under the open-source model.

There is not just one open source model. There is no rule how to generate money with open source and how to licence it. It's just that people are used to the idea that open source is free. Open source by itself does not mean it's free. The licence agreement states if it's free or not. And there are many to choose from or you can make your own with your own rules.

Space Engineers is very well released under the open source model. It's on Git Hub. You can make pull requestes and contribute. Thats what open source is about not if it's free or not.

[TI-994A]

There is not just one open source model. There is no rule how to generate money with open source and how to licence it. It's just that people are used to the idea that open source is free. Open source by itself does not mean it's free. The licence agreement states if it's free or not. And there are many to choose from or you can make your own with your own rules.

I'm referring to the open source model as outlined by the Open Source Initiative, and not some ad hoc make-up-your-own-rules business model.

Space Engineers is very well released under the open source model. It's on Git Hub.

GitHub is merely a free repository service that neither enforces, nor is concerned with the licensing structures of the code that it hosts. Simply being on GitHub does not qualify it for the open source model.

In any case, rather than endlessly debating these ambiguities, let's hear what Keen Software's Marek Rosa has to say about this (link to original article):

Today we have a very important announcement for our modders and our community. We decided to give you 100% complete access to Space Engineers’ source code. This comes as a continuation of our decision to give more freedom to modders and community.

Please do not confuse this with “open source” or “free software”: While we are opening the possibility to read and alter Space Engineers and VRAGE source code, we’re not making Space Engineers or VRAGE free.

Enough said.

There's also a very interesting discussion on the open source definition in the comments section (jump link here). You should read it.

[the.weavster]

@TI-994A
Perhaps this quote from GNU will help clarify the situation for you:

Except for one special situation, the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, so don't complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a copy.

The one exception is in the case where binaries are distributed without the corresponding complete source code. Those who do this are required by the GNU GPL to provide source code on subsequent request. Without a limit on the fee for the source code, they would be able set a fee too large for anyone to pay—such as a billion dollars—and thus pretend to release source code while in truth concealing it. So in this case we have to limit the fee for source in order to ensure the user's freedom. In ordinary situations, however, there is no such justification for limiting distribution fees, so we do not limit them.