I feel the same. I think they realise it, but for the lack of better ideas, this is what shareholders want. It's like "we have to collect data, because everyone does it, and use it for anything"
Using the code later in a non open-source project can happen also with MIT/Apache licensed code. Even without CLA. Does it mean that company that does it is immoral?
I get it. If there are alternatives that overall would be better (including their technical merits and how easy it is to introduce them to a commercial company) then use them. No one is forced to buy dual-license.
Good. So now Redis Inc is in trouble because they have to replace community work with their own. If community does most of the work, then what's the problem?
Yes, they paid. And they can use the code they paid for. But it doesn't give them right to leech of any future code written by someone else IN THE FUTURE.
All this outcry about license switch coming from "community" feels funny. After all, if there is the "community" then they can take the last open-source version and keep developing it themselves, right? But most "communities" are about "take, take, take", not "work, work, work". They often upset only because someone declared they aren't going to work for free any more.
I guess they can fork that "open core", introduce that feature, then maintain it themselves forever. Pull changes from original open core and their "open" branch will be better than original.
Of course they don't want this work. They want the company to maintain it instead.
Hi all!
I'm working on a web server that is able to serve multiple versions of a web site.
Can be useful to prevent broken link errors (when a new site is deployed between a user's clicks), A/B testing (the server has some basic analytics), or just differentiating content based on source link.
I always prefer by-borrow. That's because in the future this struct may become non-copy and that means some unnecessary refactoring.
My thinking is a bit like "don't take ownership if not needed" - the "not needed" part is the most important thing. Don't require things that are not needed.
Yeah, I looked at matrix and it's really cool. But: 1. recent security problems make it a hard sell to my manager, 2. People behind Matrix don't seem to care about getting this in commercial usage.
It's an MVP but perfectly usable. I needed features that I couldn't find anywhere else:
Parameter optimization with a genetic algorithm
Fuzzy optimization: randomly remove trades or whole markets and see what happens
Data mining: find rules how to exit trades sooner for better profit
Compare strategy results to random trading
Check current drawdown for statistical significance
Write trading systems in Java so I can test every idea under the sun and never be held back by some custom "scripting" language.
Of course, it's open-source. A GitHub star is much appreciated. Thanks!