Live data from Hacker News

Open Source Doesn’t Make Money Because It Isn’t Designed to Make Money

ianbicking.org

31–40 of 454 posts

Re: Open Source Doesn’t Make Money Because It Isn’t Designed to Make Money

#31
post #28

All software is designed to not make money. Duplication of software is free by definition, so the value of software is essentially free unless it is paired with something that is not duplicatable and thus more valuable. A legal license, a physical product, consulting, support, a website, those are all non-duplicatable.

Assigning a value to things that can be duplicated with zero cost (i.e. copyright and IP) is a great cultural achievement.

Human creations (physical or non-physical) should rank higher than land (which no one created but still irrationally claims).

Re: Open Source Doesn’t Make Money Because It Isn’t Designed to Make Money

#32
post #22

I wonder what would happen if someone started an open source software "vendor" run along the lines of public radio / podcasts. Open source licensed (using a regular GPL or other license, nothing new or tricky), but a prominent encouragement to donate it you find it useful. Those donations could then be used to hire full-time developers, and work on the kinds of software that is currently not well served by open-sourc…

I have heard before (can't remember where) that a lot of companies won't donate to a project, but would gladly pay for "marketing" if the project simply listed companies that donated to them. I'm not sure if that would be a feasible option, but I can definitely see the difference in value propositions.

I wonder if this is because the people in companies currently using open source aren't people with control over the purse-strings. They're the people focused on getting a product out the door.

The marketing department on the other hand, expects to have to pay to put the company name on things. So naturally, they'd be happy being listed as a partner, sponsor, patron, etc.

Re: Open Source Doesn’t Make Money Because It Isn’t Designed to Make Money

#33

Years ago open source was about companies collaborating on commoditizing an obvious solution AWAY from the market. The economic case for open source isn’t about value added product companies, but a kind of commercial pooling of resources to create cost reduction and easier software maintenance on stuff nobody wants to buy or maintain... Of course orgs have lost site of this. The sad reality is 99.999% of orgs are OSS…

You say that like OSS "freeloading" is a bad thing when it's basically by design. If the result of previous pooling of resources is that there is a lot of open source software that you (or a vendor) can just pick up and use, isn't that just things working out as intended? Isn't this what users and vendors being free to do what they want really means?

It seems like many of us are conflicted about whether open source software should come with obligations. It doesn't have any strings attached by design, but then we want to add fuzzy moral obligations instead.

Re: Open Source Doesn’t Make Money Because It Isn’t Designed to Make Money

#35
post #16

I wonder what would happen if someone started an open source software "vendor" run along the lines of public radio / podcasts. Open source licensed (using a regular GPL or other license, nothing new or tricky), but a prominent encouragement to donate it you find it useful. Those donations could then be used to hire full-time developers, and work on the kinds of software that is currently not well served by open-sourc…

Godot engine has this model. They are getting donations from patreon [1], enough to pay 2 people full time at the center of the project. Wikipedia is another project which is doing this very successfully. But in general, those methods bring you much less money than if you were proprietary, because as you rightfully point out, most people are "freeloaders". [1]: https://www.patreon.com/godotengine

to nitpick, but to me the term 'freeloaders' has a negative connotation and I don't think it should in the case of FOSS. Being able to use it for free is quite literally the point of FOSS.

Apart from that, you make good points :)

Re: Open Source Doesn’t Make Money Because It Isn’t Designed to Make Money

#36
Maybe Mozilla could do with a bit less money.

They've been playing serious business for some time now, but it's pretty much been borrowed feathers.

Firefox got big because of early enthusiasts who believed in a better web. That got them enough clout to get google interested, and google basically gave them large piles of money.

Somehow that gave them the idea they were a "real business" now, and they started spending and reorganising themselves accordingly.

Now it turns out they probably weren't a real business after all. Those piles of google money in the bank could have sustained pure Firefox development perpetually, probably even allowed for fun and useful side-projects like Rust, but no, Mozilla wanted to play serious business, except, of course, now they have to compete against actual serious businesses, which in this case would be Google and Microsoft, and so far their efforts haven't been a unanimously successful.

> This is where the Free Software mission has faltered

No, this is 1. where Mozilla has faltered, and 2. Focusing on money, marketability, and business friendliness is pretty much an open source objective. That's fine, but don't drag Free Software into this.

Re: Open Source Doesn’t Make Money Because It Isn’t Designed to Make Money

#37
I think you can make money on Open Source, but I think you need partners to do so. I work for a Danish municipality that is a member of a municipality driven open source community called OS2. We’re around 60 members, and we’ve recently won a national award for tech-reuse issued by our ministry of digitisation and around 10 interest groups.

We don’t build the code ourselves. We do own, review and manage the code. We handle the project management and we facilitate access to our business processes and employees, but the actual development is something we buy.

Once things get build we often end up buying the various projects as SAAS solutions because we aren’t really geared to operate OS techs. We do have excellent federated authentication, network security and API services, but we genuinely don’t want to operate a horde of different tech stacks. This makes us a perfect match for anyone who knows how to do SAAS in the cloud though, and most of the things we build end up being run in Azure or AWS by a supplier.

So far it’s been a really beneficial relationship. We get ownership, better quality and faster more agile development. Our local development houses still make money, both from development but also from SAAS.

It has been especially good for our smaller dev houses, because a system isn’t locked down to a single supplier for years.

This last bit is entirely my personal opinion, but I prefer buying software from a local shop and helping them build and expand their businesses. On the plus side of this, they co-operate a lot better too. Municipalities are trying partners who can’t make up our minds, and a small agile shop who doesn’t point to the 4 year old contract every time you want a tiny change, has just been so refreshing.

Re: Open Source Doesn’t Make Money Because It Isn’t Designed to Make Money

#38

It's very easy to get people to pay for hosting. In Mozilla's case, I would love to see some sort of cloud hosting for Rust. I also wish I could write front end in Rust but maybe I'll just have to wait for webassembly. I can't imagine that some sort of rust to js compiler (kinda like kotlin) would be too hard and this would be a killer application. Matei Zaharia (of the Spark fame) and friends are working on weld, ht…

I am working on Rust to JS compiler based on Scala.js design. I plan to release it using Street Performer Protocol.

Re: Open Source Doesn’t Make Money Because It Isn’t Designed to Make Money

#39

Open source software is infrastructure, not a commodity. Anyone has access to build on top of it. There is no question that open source enables enormous amounts of commerce, probably more so than equivalent closed-source software would. In that way, open source very much does make money in the same way that highways and airports make money.

Tollroads and airports both have gate fees. OSS does not have gate fees. How are these the same?

You're torturing the metaphor. But OSS development on large important projects is now almost completely subsidized by the big and small companies that use it for their own ends and contribute much of their work back to the common good. So the companies that make use of it in the biggest ways do pay for it, but that effort and money contributes to a common that others can use (for only the cost of time in hobbyist cases).

Re: Open Source Doesn’t Make Money Because It Isn’t Designed to Make Money

#40
post #38

It's very easy to get people to pay for hosting. In Mozilla's case, I would love to see some sort of cloud hosting for Rust. I also wish I could write front end in Rust but maybe I'll just have to wait for webassembly. I can't imagine that some sort of rust to js compiler (kinda like kotlin) would be too hard and this would be a killer application. Matei Zaharia (of the Spark fame) and friends are working on weld, ht…

I am working on Rust to JS compiler based on Scala.js design. I plan to release it using Street Performer Protocol.

You are doing God's work. Is it on github?
Post reply on HN