Live data from Hacker News

"Just open-source it" is not realistic

rachelbythebay.com

41–50 of 68 posts

Re: "Just open-source it" is not realistic

#41
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and if no one is compelled to buy it to begin with? that's what I'm asking. I don't think we can just assume that someone would buy it.

Sure, we can't, but if you open source it, you'll make strictly less money than if you hadn't (because if nobody was going to buy it, they aren't going to pay you money if you open source it anyway). This is too simplified, as you can have other monetization models, but usually you don't open-source things if you want to charge for them.

> Sure, we can't, but if you open source it, you'll make strictly less money than if you hadn't (because if nobody was going to buy it, they aren't going to pay you money if you open source it anyway).

That isnt correct, a lot of people buy open source software specifically because it is open source.

Re: "Just open-source it" is not realistic

#42
post #30
post #10

"I might make myself look a bit messy by releasing this. I also imagine that some other people might have to put in some amount of work (much less than the work I put into writing this in the first place) to get this to work, so I'll make them rewrite it all from scratch if they are in need of this functionality." I don't believe this person understands empathy. I realize if you want your project to flourish as an op…

> However, a tarball of shit is better than NOTHING. bzzzt! Wrong! Releasing stuff that is "close enough" as a product and have it succeed is wasting other people's lives as they struggle to fix your ball of mud and make it work better over time. Better to wait and not waste other people's time.

Just in case anyone who is thinking about releasing open source softare reads this, it is entirely wrong.

Software (open or otherwise) is never done, its always too ugly, missing some features, slow and / or buggy.

If you are thinking about releasing your stuff as open source, do it now, it probably is too early and nobody will use it, someone may pick up it or your next library, share some knowledge report some bugs or evern fix stuff.

It is very easy for software developers to verify the stability of the libraries they are using, you have absolutely no responsibility to them by releasing software that has bugs, it all does.

Re: "Just open-source it" is not realistic

#43
post #13

If you really want to keep building Fred, you could use something like IgnitionDeck ( http://ignitiondeck.com ) to raise money over a longer duration. We've had a lot of people come to us after successful and non-successful Kickstarters in order to keep the dream alive. Edit: I get it, blatant self-promotion. Look through my history and you'll see I rarely mention my company, and when I do, it's appropriate. In this…

Well, I'm happy you self-promoted. Ignition Deck looks really awesome, and I wouldn't have heard about it otherwise.

For example, http://ignitiondeck.com/id/crowdfunding-a-video-game/ is the most valuable crowdfunding breakdown I've ever seen.

Re: "Just open-source it" is not realistic

#44
post #40
post #23

In other words, capitalism ruins it for the rest of us....

What's the alternative? Do you want your tax money to go towards supporting this particular developer so that she can open source this particular project? Because that's the alternative. Or are you saying that she shouldn't have the right to determine what to do with her code? Because that world sounds pretty awful too.

Sure, funding free software democratically as a public good is rational. There's no law of physics which makes you choose between directly compensating people, and their work being open. Books, music and movies could then also be open.

I recall this has been advocated by Lessig and Stallman. Go far enough in this direction, you end up with ideas like Participatory Economics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics)

Unfortunately, to people in non-democratic countries (who, for example, can't choose to stop allocating their taxes to prisons, drones, armies and surveillance), taxes are some awful thing. But in a saner culture, people would rather enjoy deciding on collective purchases.

Re: "Just open-source it" is not realistic

#45
post #2

Summary: "I might want to make money out of this, so... nope."

I don't think it is fred itself she wants to make money off of, but rather the C++ libraries she wrote that it uses, as well as an automatic build system. Other clients do pay for work based on those, hence the reluctance to give those away.

Re: "Just open-source it" is not realistic

#46
post #23

In other words, capitalism ruins it for the rest of us....

The complete opposite. We don't live in a centrally planned economy (thankfully). Instead multiple developers have released multiple feed readers with multiple licensing, pricing and freedom schemes. Everyone gets to choose what they want. There is absolutely nothing "ruined" about that.

Re: "Just open-source it" is not realistic

#47
post #22

Regarding the money thing, remember there are other currencies than dollars. When I open sourced my own RSS reader[1] some of the "non-monetary currencies" I received: * Several (non-robot) recruitment emails from well-known companies doing Ruby * Additional development time from strangers to fix things I wasn't interested in doing (i18n, performance improvements) * Additional testing time to iron out all the bugs *…

This is a really cool example, thanks for contributing. You have my star :)

Re: "Just open-source it" is not realistic

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, we can't, but if you open source it, you'll make strictly less money than if you hadn't (because if nobody was going to buy it, they aren't going to pay you money if you open source it anyway). This is too simplified, as you can have other monetization models, but usually you don't open-source things if you want to charge for them.

> Sure, we can't, but if you open source it, you'll make strictly less money than if you hadn't (because if nobody was going to buy it, they aren't going to pay you money if you open source it anyway). That isnt correct, a lot of people buy open source software specifically because it is open source.

And statistically, they're absolutely dwarfed by the money flowing to proprietary applications.

It's possible to sell open source software, but it is very, very tricky to get right.

Re: "Just open-source it" is not realistic

#49
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and if no one is compelled to buy it to begin with? that's what I'm asking. I don't think we can just assume that someone would buy it.

Sure, we can't, but if you open source it, you'll make strictly less money than if you hadn't (because if nobody was going to buy it, they aren't going to pay you money if you open source it anyway). This is too simplified, as you can have other monetization models, but usually you don't open-source things if you want to charge for them.

You might make more money by open sourcing: if, for example, it's not currently in a state to have anyone be willing to purchase it.

Re: "Just open-source it" is not realistic

#50
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the alternative? Do you want your tax money to go towards supporting this particular developer so that she can open source this particular project? Because that's the alternative. Or are you saying that she shouldn't have the right to determine what to do with her code? Because that world sounds pretty awful too.

Sure, funding free software democratically as a public good is rational. There's no law of physics which makes you choose between directly compensating people, and their work being open. Books, music and movies could then also be open. I recall this has been advocated by Lessig and Stallman. Go far enough in this direction, you end up with ideas like Participatory Economics. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participato…

where and when do collective purchases go to anything besides enriching the wealthy or politically connected?

"[The socialists declare] that the State owes subsistence, well-being, and education to all its citizens; that it should be generous, charitable, involved in everything, devoted to everybody; ...that it should intervene directly to relieve all suffering, satisfy and anticipate all wants, furnish capital to all enterprises, enlightenment to all minds, balm for all wounds, asylums for all the unfortunate, and even aid to the point of shedding French blood, for all oppressed people on the face of the earth. Who would not like to see all these benefits flow forth upon the world from the law, as from an inexhaustible source? ... But is it possible? ... Whence does [the State] draw those resources that it is urged to dispense by way of benefits to individuals? Is it not from the individuals themselves? How, then, can these resources be increased by passing through the hands of a parasitic and voracious intermediary? ...Finally...we shall see the entire people transformed into petitioners. Landed property, agriculture, industry, commerce, shipping, industrial companies, all will bestir themselves to claim favors from the State. The public treasury will be literally pillaged. Everyone will have good reasons to prove that legal fraternity should be interpreted in this sense: "Let me have the benefits, and let others pay the costs." Everyone's effort will be directed toward snatching a scrap of fraternal privilege from the legislature. The suffering classes, although having the greatest claim, will not always have the greatest success."

Post reply on HN