I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one
1–10 of 179 posts
Re: I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one
#2For standalone software like databases or CLI tools AGPL isn't an issue, if legal departments would object against using such software those companies couldn't run Linux/GNU tools either. For libraries it's a different story of course. The other points are mostly true, I think if open-source is just a marketing strategy to you it's not worth it.
Re: I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one
#3The sad thing is so few companies really invest in participating in FOSS software. That’s one reason these “open source companies” came to exist. It really should be a community of contributors, backed by a diverse set of companies. At best, employers will allow contributing bug fixes or small patches. Not the in depth dedication these projects really need.
We’re heading towards a handful of giant companies that can afford to pay large teams to build and maintain FOSS, and hence own developer mindshare, for their own selfish reasons.
Re: I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one
#4post points out that there is variation among what constitutes open source companies / potential for profitability, and yet self-contradictorily concludes a simplified blanket rule on open source being a 'better strategy' and uses this simplified rule to conclude a similarly simplified blanket rule for investing in them..
seems a bit off.
Re: I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one
#5This is unusually insightful for a LinkedIn post. One question, though: towards the end, it suggests that GPL/AGPL products, which are more defensible against commercial competitors who simply resell the open source project, are "legally murky" and might be rejected by customer legal teams. But does that matter? Can't you just do what Sleepycat did, and offer commercial customers a clean commercial license?
Re: I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one
#6The sad thing is so few companies really invest in participating in FOSS software. That’s one reason these “open source companies” came to exist. It really should be a community of contributors, backed by a diverse set of companies. At best, employers will allow contributing bug fixes or small patches. Not the in depth dedication these projects really need. We’re heading towards a handful of giant companies that can…
> We’re heading towards a handful of giant companies that can afford to pay large teams to build and maintain FOSS, and hence own developer mindshare, for their own selfish reasons.
"heading towards"? I'd say we're there.
And it's been a while coming. I wrongly discounted Stallman. Like many, I found the GPL onerous and annoying to deal with as a developer. But we've paid a high price.
Re: I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one
#7We live in a fundamentally capitalist society. Venture capital, entrepreneurship, the startup culture, etc, are all fundamentally profit driven.
Open source is a movement which is ultimately driven by ideology. Even open source advocates need to put food on the table.
While there are business models that can support open source projects, these will always be the exception when humans are involved. There is always an entrepreneur willing to ignore ideologies (and sometimes laws and/or morals) to make a buck.
I believe that there is a need and important place for open source and free software, but the fact is that this needs to be funded by philanthropy and dedication to ideology, at the exception of profit in most (almost every) case.
In this context, I think the article is correct. Depending on a majority of people for good behavior, good will and altuism is naive.
Re: I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one
#8The sad thing is so few companies really invest in participating in FOSS software. That’s one reason these “open source companies” came to exist. It really should be a community of contributors, backed by a diverse set of companies. At best, employers will allow contributing bug fixes or small patches. Not the in depth dedication these projects really need. We’re heading towards a handful of giant companies that can…
> We’re heading towards a handful of giant companies that can afford to pay large teams to build and maintain FOSS, and hence own developer mindshare, for their own selfish reasons. "heading towards"? I'd say we're there. And it's been a while coming. I wrongly discounted Stallman. Like many, I found the GPL onerous and annoying to deal with as a developer. But we've paid a high price.
> But we've paid a high price.
What price?
Re: I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one
#9This is unusually insightful for a LinkedIn post. One question, though: towards the end, it suggests that GPL/AGPL products, which are more defensible against commercial competitors who simply resell the open source project, are "legally murky" and might be rejected by customer legal teams. But does that matter? Can't you just do what Sleepycat did, and offer commercial customers a clean commercial license?
Microsoft spent a lot of money and energy in the late 90s and 00s to convince the world - especially business and legal people - that the GPL was a "cancer"
The GPL is one of the cleanest licenses out there. Use the code in your project, give the source of your project to anyone you give the binaries to, job done.
Re: I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one
#10This is unusually insightful for a LinkedIn post. One question, though: towards the end, it suggests that GPL/AGPL products, which are more defensible against commercial competitors who simply resell the open source project, are "legally murky" and might be rejected by customer legal teams. But does that matter? Can't you just do what Sleepycat did, and offer commercial customers a clean commercial license?
Microsoft spent a lot of money and energy in the late 90s and 00s to convince the world - especially business and legal people - that the GPL was a "cancer" The GPL is one of the cleanest licenses out there. Use the code in your project, give the source of your project to anyone you give the binaries to, job done.
Then they can give the source code out to anyone...