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

I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one

linkedin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 179 posts

Re: I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one

#91

Post by ahepp »

When I was a broke college student, I cared a lot more about open source. Now that I have more resources, more experience, less time, and a personal interest in getting paid for software, I have stronger feelings about the interface.

Whether or not the box is black isn't really on my mind these days. I rarely have the skill or time to fix them when they break, or don't do what I want. I'd rather the box be easier to swap out or build around when requirements change. I'd rather have a richer ecosystem of blacker boxes, than a bunch of broken transparent boxes laying around.

A problem, of course, is that businesses don't want their boxes to be interchangable. Transparent boxes do tend to help.

Re: I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one

#92

Post by jrochkind1 »

Sebb767 wrote: post #43
JoshTriplett wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? It isn't an issue of "clean"; GPL/AGPL aren't "legally mu…

> It isn't an issue of "clean"; GPL/AGPL aren't "legally murky". Yes and no. I'd agree that, in general, they're legally safe and clear, but when you're talking to the legal department of a company, it is not about whether they're clearly defined. The actual worry is whether a patent troll or a more litigious competitor can sue the s out of your company and extract millions upon millions of either legal costs or sett…

> The actual worry is whether a patent troll or a more litigious competito

Is there a reason that is more of a risk with GPL/AGPL than with other ("permissive") open source licenses though?

Re: I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one

#93

Post by mooreds »

BossingAround wrote: post #45

If folks at HN ventured to take a guess, what would be your bets for the next successful OSS startups/companies? Be it a great exit or an IPO.

I was at a conference a few years ago and the conversation around the lunch table was the chilling effects of the public cloud's operational expertise on venture funded open source businesses (what we saw with Elastic). Nothing I've seen since that conference has changed my mind.

As a developer, I love using open source software. Easy to review/bug fix, less risky because even if the company fails, it'll be around, and usually very low cost and easy to get started with.

As a prospective business owner, I think it stinks.

Another view: as a consumer of software, I love free stuff. As a producer of software, I like to get paid.

Re: I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one

#94

Post by [deleted] »

alfonsodev wrote: post #84
gregwebs wrote: post #75

The main business proposition of open source is that you can create a larger market. This is hinted at in the article by saying "easy distribution", but it isn't really discussed. The goal of open source is to create a market for the product that is 10x or 100x bigger than a proprietary product would have. You won't ever capture 100% of the market. But if you capture a fraction of that larger market you still come ou…

This is a good point, any examples that come to mind to illustrate it? I’m genuinely interested.

[deleted]

Re: I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one

#95

Post by temac »

rhn_mk1 wrote: post #39

> If you are running a commercial business on top of your open-source solution, it is paramount that you own the product's full IP. Why is it "paramount"? While I have seen that behaviour, there are also several commercial businesses in my corner of the 'net based on open source solutions that don't make an effort to own the full IP and they are doing OK. I think there's some unstated assumption here, anyone care to…

> If you are running a commercial business on top of your open-source solution, it is paramount that you own the product's full IP.

That sentence is even completely absurd. Suppose you ship a product/deploy a service that includes, among other things, Linux and PostgreSQL. Is it paramount that you own the full IP of Linux and PostgreSQL?...

Re: I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one

#96

Post by alfonsodev »

tommoor wrote: post #27

I'm working on an "open core" knowledge base [0] right now and have been for the last few years. We're definitely leaving money on the table by offering an easy docker install option and I'd largely agree with the points made in the article but it's hard to understate the value of the distribution that open source brings, particularly for product-lead teams that aren't so hot at marketing. [0] https://www.getoutline.…

Your product looks great, I’ll give it a try!

I’m curious. What was your thought process when making the decision about open sourcing?

Were you open source from day one?

Re: I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one

#97

Post by gregwebs »

alfonsodev wrote: post #84
gregwebs wrote: post #75

The main business proposition of open source is that you can create a larger market. This is hinted at in the article by saying "easy distribution", but it isn't really discussed. The goal of open source is to create a market for the product that is 10x or 100x bigger than a proprietary product would have. You won't ever capture 100% of the market. But if you capture a fraction of that larger market you still come ou…

This is a good point, any examples that come to mind to illustrate it? I’m genuinely interested.

Many successful databases are open source. MongoDB (at least before the recent license change!) is a good example of a huge company where I doubt anyone would have made a noticeable business out of a proprietary version of the product.

Re: I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one

#98

Post by JoshTriplett »

ThePhysicist wrote: post #53
JoshTriplett wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? It isn't an issue of "clean"; GPL/AGPL aren't "legally mu…

It really depends on what you're selling. All of the Linux core tools and the kernel are released under GPL and obviously companies have no issues using them. For libraries that are statically compiled or used as part of your own software it's a different story though.

> For libraries that are statically compiled or used as part of your own software it's a different story though.

That's still not "legally murky"; that's the GPL working as designed. If the component has enough value, that's an opportunity to sell an alternate license.

Of course, if your primary value proposition is something other than the library (such as a paid service that the library helps programs integrate with), by all means use a permissive license.

Re: I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one

#99

Post by dragonwriter »

> giving your product away for free is just as bad a business strategy as it sounds.

Has anyone, anywhere, argued the opposite? Because this seems like beating a strawman.

> Copyleft licenses such as AGPL force adopters to publish changes back to the source repo or offer them via network protocols.

The AGPL specifically does this, other copyleft licenses (like the GPL do not for “adopters”, only for people redistributing executables)

> This is meant to deter third parties from offering competing hosted services

No, copyleft in general is about prohibiting downstream proprietary distributions (and also, in the AGPL case, proprietary hosted versions) it is not supposed to prevent competing software/services.

> Instead, why not do what traditional businesses are doing, sell a product, and simply charge for the value it provides?

That's what “open source” companies do. The thing they sell is the product (whether it's support and consultancy, the value-add of the enterprise version of an open-core product, or hosted SaaS.)

The problem with “prop-tech” is often, as this piece itself points out, but entirely fails to address in recommending “prop-tech”: “the world of FOSS is full of strong and established offerings with a zero-dollar price tag.” And making your tech proprietary doesn't stop you from having to compete with the open-source competition.

Post reply on HN