Death of an open-source business model
joemorrison.medium.com
Death of an open-source business model
1–10 of 223 posts
Re: Death of an open-source business model
#2I had assumed this was yet another Centos lament, but it was much more interesting than that.
Re: Death of an open-source business model
#3> if you give your secret sauce away for free, and it gets popular enough, cloud providers will inevitably spin up competitive services using your very own code against you.
For some reason, the author never mentioned AGPL. What's wrong with using this license if you want to defend your open-source business model?
Re: Death of an open-source business model
#4Mapbox releases Mapbox GL JS v2 under a proprietary license whereas v1 (presumably) was under an "open core" business model. (Mapbox v1 and v2 are graphics card enhanced mapping libraries?).
The author of the article's thesis is that this is "an end of an era" of Open Core business models (putting core technology under a free/libre licensing and charging for extra proprietary features).
I'm very curious as to what other people here on HN have to say about it. Gitlab, a prominent company that follows an Open Core model, is a YCombinator alum, no?
Re: Death of an open-source business model
#5I disagree with this article’s premise that all software is services-based. There are lots of open-core business models that can’t be eaten by the cloud providers, because they aren’t services to be spun up.
Almost all of the CNCF-based businesses are complex plug-in models that the CPs can’t just make a button for.
Re: Death of an open-source business model
#6> if you give your secret sauce away for free, and it gets popular enough, cloud providers will inevitably spin up competitive services using your very own code against you. For some reason, the author never mentioned AGPL. What's wrong with using this license if you want to defend your open-source business model?
It doesn't help with the revenue problem, it only helps ensure that any feature additions flow back upstream.
Re: Death of an open-source business model
#7What is dead may never die. Times change, open core isn't and hasn't been viable for a while.
Re: Death of an open-source business model
#8> if you give your secret sauce away for free, and it gets popular enough, cloud providers will inevitably spin up competitive services using your very own code against you. For some reason, the author never mentioned AGPL. What's wrong with using this license if you want to defend your open-source business model?
It doesn't help with the revenue problem, it only helps ensure that any feature additions flow back upstream.
Any examples where it was a problem?
Re: Death of an open-source business model
#9Mapbox releases Mapbox GL JS v2 under a proprietary license whereas v1 (presumably) was under an "open core" business model. (Mapbox v1 and v2 are graphics card enhanced mapping libraries?). The author of the article's thesis is that this is "an end of an era" of Open Core business models (putting core technology under a free/libre licensing and charging for extra proprietary features). I'm very curious as to what ot…
Yes, and valued at over 6 billion so they seem to do ok
Re: Death of an open-source business model
#10[del]