Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to pay your rent with your open source project

plausible.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 171 posts

Re: How to pay your rent with your open source project

#11

Post by jcelerier »

tannhaeuser wrote: post #6

Good article, but I thought webpack is founded by The OpenJS Foundation these days, who are making an astonishing job of identifying and sustaining core web packages. Unfortunately, they also picked controversial software like AMP (in exchange for contributions by Google I guess) to make it appear a grassroots or "legitimate" effort. Also, I think the ongoing trend to slap a thin wrapper on top of F/OSS and sell it a…

> Also, I think the ongoing trend to slap a thin wrapper on top of F/OSS and sell it as a service (aka "the Cloud") points to a weakness in F/OSS licensing schemes that needs to be addressed as I'm sure that almost all devs working on F/OSS don't intend their work to become part of a lock-in scheme, mass surveillance, or both, all the while not even getting contributions back.

the solution to "not even getting contributions back." exists since 2007 but apparently just writing the letters "A" "G" "P" "L" is enough to make a lot of people screech.

Re: How to pay your rent with your open source project

#12

Post by dgellow »

leotaku wrote: post #5
dgellow wrote: post #2

What about charging for build and distribution? Krita does something like this for their Steam and Windows Store versions, that helps finance their development. I personally believe that could also work for other distribution channels, such as a private APT repository, or equivalent to other platforms. People could still build by themselves from sources if that's what they want, and if you want convenience you buy th…

One problem I see is that for more tech-savy Linux users, which are the people most CLI software is targeted at, convenience means simply installing something via their distributions package manager. I am not interested in downloading your precompiled static binary or setting up your private repository. I want to run `foo install bar` and get on with my work. On the other hand there are some more mainstream optionall…

You’re right regarding the convenience point, to have a chance to work it has to be as straightforward as possible to buy and then install your tools.

I understand the difference people expect from GUI vs CLI, I just don’t think it really makes sense to be ok to pay for one but not the other, and I see it as a missed opportunity for tool creators.

Edit: Regarding Linux users as the main target, I don’t know if that’s true. I had mostly macOS in mind (I know I explicitly mentioned APT in my initial comment, that’s just what I had in mind at that moment), mac users seem to be ready to pay good money for their tools, there is a healthy market for GUIs. Something equivalent to homebrew cask but with an economics component may have its users if the tools being sold are considered valuable enough.

Re: How to pay your rent with your open source project

#13

Post by tonyedgecombe »

typingmonkey wrote: post #9
WJW wrote: post #3

TL;DR: start a business that sells a (possibly premium) hosted version of the project, sells training/support for the project or try to extract sponsoring from your users. It's less a "pay your rent with your open source project" article (as the title suggests) than a "start a business that happens to produce open source software" article. Also anyone with one or two smallish libraries need not apply, this is about p…

Yes I thought the same. They did not make money with the open source project, instead created a product and sold that.

Which in many ways looks deeply unapealing. The last thing I want to do is sell support or services. I'd much rather spend my time writing software that is easy to use and well documented.

Re: How to pay your rent with your open source project

#14

Post by richardwhiuk »

jcelerier wrote: post #11
tannhaeuser wrote: post #6

Good article, but I thought webpack is founded by The OpenJS Foundation these days, who are making an astonishing job of identifying and sustaining core web packages. Unfortunately, they also picked controversial software like AMP (in exchange for contributions by Google I guess) to make it appear a grassroots or "legitimate" effort. Also, I think the ongoing trend to slap a thin wrapper on top of F/OSS and sell it a…

> Also, I think the ongoing trend to slap a thin wrapper on top of F/OSS and sell it as a service (aka "the Cloud") points to a weakness in F/OSS licensing schemes that needs to be addressed as I'm sure that almost all devs working on F/OSS don't intend their work to become part of a lock-in scheme, mass surveillance, or both, all the while not even getting contributions back. the solution to "not even getting contri…

The AGPL doesn't guarantee that you'll get contributions back.

For the very few companies who are willing to touch AGPL code, they only need to make the changes available (e.g. a CD in the post is sufficient).

Very few companies are willing to use it, because it creates an almost unassailable hurdle in lots of industries.

It's also highly at risk at making a bunch of other projects AGPL as well.

Re: How to pay your rent with your open source project

#15

Post by open-source-ux »

There is another option, unpopular with some open source advocates, the source-only option. You simply sell your software product (with source code) for a price. That's it. Simple and uncomplicated.

Your customers get the source of your app. They can modify the code to suit their needs. But unlike open source, they cannot re-distribute the app. Very few companies would object to this.

Some popular and profitable projects that follow the source-only option are Kirby CMS and Craft CMS. Both these projects publish their source code on GitHub and rely on the honesty of their customers to pay for the product. This means that even people who would never purchase the products can still study and learn from the source code.

Re: How to pay your rent with your open source project

#16

Post by gmueckl »

dgellow wrote: post #2

What about charging for build and distribution? Krita does something like this for their Steam and Windows Store versions, that helps finance their development. I personally believe that could also work for other distribution channels, such as a private APT repository, or equivalent to other platforms. People could still build by themselves from sources if that's what they want, and if you want convenience you buy th…

This is the model for the Ardour DAW on Windows. You get the source or either a free binary that disables audio output after a few minutes or a paid for binary eithout that restriction. I don't know how well it works.

Re: How to pay your rent with your open source project

#17

Post by krn »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #13
typingmonkey wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I thought the same. They did not make money with the open source project, instead created a product and sold that.

Which in many ways looks deeply unapealing. The last thing I want to do is sell support or services. I'd much rather spend my time writing software that is easy to use and well documented.

Then, I guess, the only choice is Github Sponsors. And it doesn't seem to be a bad one[1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23613719

Re: How to pay your rent with your open source project

#18

Post by FallsApart »

open-source-ux wrote: post #15

There is another option, unpopular with some open source advocates, the source-only option. You simply sell your software product (with source code) for a price. That's it. Simple and uncomplicated. Your customers get the source of your app. They can modify the code to suit their needs. But unlike open source, they cannot re-distribute the app. Very few companies would object to this. Some popular and profitable proj…

That model falls apart from the start. If anyone is savvy enough to compile from source then why buy it? If the code is free, then, I don't see how they'd even bother to pay for it; it being the compiled version; of course.

It the source is out they can't hardly enforce anything or much. People will just go to github and compile it for free.

Re: How to pay your rent with your open source project

#19

Post by Confiks »

open-source-ux wrote: post #15

There is another option, unpopular with some open source advocates, the source-only option. You simply sell your software product (with source code) for a price. That's it. Simple and uncomplicated. Your customers get the source of your app. They can modify the code to suit their needs. But unlike open source, they cannot re-distribute the app. Very few companies would object to this. Some popular and profitable proj…

An alternative to this option that might make both camps happy is to use the Business Source License [1] that is source-only for new changes, and automatically become open source after a certain time (default after 4 years).

It allows creators to let customers pay for new features and support, while at the same time 'derisking' vendor lock-in by automatically converting to an open source license.

[1] https://mariadb.com/bsl-faq-adopting/

Re: How to pay your rent with your open source project

#20

Post by joshuaissac »

FallsApart wrote: post #18
open-source-ux wrote: post #15

There is another option, unpopular with some open source advocates, the source-only option. You simply sell your software product (with source code) for a price. That's it. Simple and uncomplicated. Your customers get the source of your app. They can modify the code to suit their needs. But unlike open source, they cannot re-distribute the app. Very few companies would object to this. Some popular and profitable proj…

That model falls apart from the start. If anyone is savvy enough to compile from source then why buy it? If the code is free, then, I don't see how they'd even bother to pay for it; it being the compiled version; of course. It the source is out they can't hardly enforce anything or much. People will just go to github and compile it for free.

> People will just go to github and compile it for free.

I think open-source-ux was talking about software where the customers would be companies, where there is comparatively less of an appetite for using pirated or unlicensed software.

Post reply on HN