Clarify dimensions of "Take, make, open, closed, free, $"

[MarkusTiede]

Openness: open / closed / proprietary

[MarkusTiede]

Recommendation from @culmat

Open, closed, take, make, free, $

At comparable features prefer

1. 100: "Open source" over "closed source"

• Why: openness meets (2, 5, 8, 10) and supports (1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9) criteria of digital sustainability
• closed meets (1) and supports (9)

2. 010: Take over make

• Why: we're not primarily a software producing company

3. 001: "For free" over "for sale"

• Why: Reduce costs

This leads us to the following priorities

1. 111: Open source - take for free
2. 110: Open source - take for sale
3. 101: Open source - make for free
4. 100: Open source - make for sale
5. 011: Closed source - take for free
6. 010: Closed source - take for sale
7. 001: Closed source - make for free
8. 000: Closed source - make for sale

[joachimprinzbach]

Shouldn't "Take free closed source" be listed before "Buy closed source"?

[MarkusTiede]

Thanks @joachimprinzbach - I've corrected @culmat statement accordingly!

[MarkusTiede]

Visualization via http://www.interactivenn.net/index.html

Heberle, H.; Meirelles, G. V.; da Silva, F. R.; Telles, G. P.; Minghim, R. InteractiVenn: a web-based tool for the analysis of sets through Venn diagrams. BMC Bioinformatics 16:169 (2015).

src.zip

[culmat]

I like the model.

"Take free closed source" is still a no-go to me.

Regarding 001: Closed source - make for free 000: Closed source - make for sale Would we really do that? When we develop closed source ( in house ) we normally don't give away the product. Not for free and not for sale.

So Option 5,7 and 8 are irrelevant for me. The worst relevant option would be develop closed source ( inhouse, no sharing, no selling)