Problems With Open-Source Business Models • Hacker News Board

Re: Problems With Open-Source Business Models

#21

Post by tick_tock_tick » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 7:23 PM UTC

MrTonyD wrote: post #3

I've been working in Open Source for a long time now - decades. The problem I see is that so many rich and wealthy companies (and their billionaire owners) are the big beneficiaries of open source. Look at Spark, Hadoop, Linux, gnu tools and others - who uses them at a large scale? It is the wealthy companies who avoid paying salaries for the development of those tools. So I've become convinced that we should disting…

The biggest issue with this is very few "small" companies envision staying small forever. Who would risk building their company on a stack that you lose the license for if you do too well?

I think what really happened is people didn't quite realize, or didn't think it would matter, what they were giving up when they open sourced their software. It sounds good and feels good but 5-10 years later when it's a core component at major companies it feels like you got ripped off even when you explicitly signed up for it.

Re: Problems With Open-Source Business Models

#22

Post by ghaff » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 7:25 PM UTC

studentik wrote: post #18

ghaff wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what the GPL is about at all. No (OSI-approved) open source license has the distinction that you draw and one that did wouldn't be approved. (And it wouldn't be an open source license in the eyes of the Free Software Foundation either.)

Thank you! So charging for commercial usage is not considered 'open source' even when source is actually available?

You can absolutely charge for a product that is based on an open source project. A simple example is you charge for support of an open source project. However, you cannot tell users that they can't use the (unsupported) open source bits for commercial purposes without paying you. Doing so would not be allowed under any approved open source license.

Re: Problems With Open-Source Business Models

#23

Post by vortico » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 7:27 PM UTC

angel_j wrote: post #13

vortico wrote: post #7

>There is no Open Source Business Model. Careful about universal claims. https://vcvrack.com/ is an open-source business model and it works great for me.

What is the business model?

It's a bit like open core, except instead of enhancing the core product in a commercial fork, commercial plugins are sold and dynamically loaded by the open-source application. The website includes a store for purchasing these plugins by VCV and third-party developers (who pay a retail commission). VCV plugin sales are significantly higher than third-party plugin sales due to their association with the VCV trademark and logo, so in a way, you can claim that each hour developing the open-source product (VCV Rack) has a direct effect on commercial plugin sales, so I am "funded" to develop open-source software.

With that said, a commercial fork is being worked on this year that works in additional environments (i.e. as a VST/AU/AAX plugin) as the "normal" open-source Rack (i.e. a standalone application for Win/Mac/Lin). If I understand correctly, this is similar to the traditional open core model, although it's not really an enhanced version but a ported version.

Re: Problems With Open-Source Business Models

#24

Post by falien » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 7:28 PM UTC

studentik wrote: post #18

ghaff wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what the GPL is about at all. No (OSI-approved) open source license has the distinction that you draw and one that did wouldn't be approved. (And it wouldn't be an open source license in the eyes of the Free Software Foundation either.)

Thank you! So charging for commercial usage is not considered 'open source' even when source is actually available?

Correct. That is often referred to as literally a "Source available" license which is common from entities such as Microsoft.

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition for what qualifies as "Open Source"

Re: Problems With Open-Source Business Models

#25

Post by vortico » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 7:29 PM UTC

codetrotter wrote: post #10

vortico wrote: post #7

>There is no Open Source Business Model. Careful about universal claims. https://vcvrack.com/ is an open-source business model and it works great for me.

Are you the creator of VCV Rack? It’s a cool piece of software and certainly one of the most beautiful user interfaces I have used in an open source program. The project website is cool as well. Very nice with the images of the rack in the mobile version :)

Yes, thanks! The website isn't fully mobile-responsive, but it gets the job done. Since Rack is desktop software, the need for a mobile website is less than normal.

Re: Problems With Open-Source Business Models

#26

Post by aaachilless » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 7:30 PM UTC

tdb7893 wrote: post #4

MrTonyD wrote: post #3

I've been working in Open Source for a long time now - decades. The problem I see is that so many rich and wealthy companies (and their billionaire owners) are the big beneficiaries of open source. Look at Spark, Hadoop, Linux, gnu tools and others - who uses them at a large scale? It is the wealthy companies who avoid paying salaries for the development of those tools. So I've become convinced that we should disting…

I don't understand how big companies using it is a problem. Is them using it hurting the projects somehow?

One might believe that OSS's raison d'etre is to increase equality in economic opportunity. If you see OSS dev that way and you see corporations like Google and Facebook as opponents of that cause, then if you agree with GP's statement on who the beneficiaries are, you might also agree with GP that there's a problem.

Re: Problems With Open-Source Business Models

#27

Post by kemitchell » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 7:33 PM UTC

MrTonyD wrote: post #3

I've been working in Open Source for a long time now - decades. The problem I see is that so many rich and wealthy companies (and their billionaire owners) are the big beneficiaries of open source. Look at Spark, Hadoop, Linux, gnu tools and others - who uses them at a large scale? It is the wealthy companies who avoid paying salaries for the development of those tools. So I've become convinced that we should disting…

The difference between where we think the advantage of open source goes and the reality of who it advantages, overall, is the root of a great deal of confusion and helplessness.

Your point reminded me immediately of this article from late last year:

https://redmonk.com/sogrady/2018/12/21/cycles-oss/

The article's reasoning struck me as fundamentally sound, but it began with the false identification of open with the public, rather than private, interest.

As for your proposal, have a look at the Fair Source License: https://fair.io/

I blogged initial thoughts on Fair, line-by-line, when it came out: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2016/03/30/First-Read-of-the-...

Re: Problems With Open-Source Business Models

#28

Post by aaachilless » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 7:35 PM UTC

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #21

MrTonyD wrote: post #3

I've been working in Open Source for a long time now - decades. The problem I see is that so many rich and wealthy companies (and their billionaire owners) are the big beneficiaries of open source. Look at Spark, Hadoop, Linux, gnu tools and others - who uses them at a large scale? It is the wealthy companies who avoid paying salaries for the development of those tools. So I've become convinced that we should disting…

The biggest issue with this is very few "small" companies envision staying small forever. Who would risk building their company on a stack that you lose the license for if you do too well? I think what really happened is people didn't quite realize, or didn't think it would matter, what they were giving up when they open sourced their software. It sounds good and feels good but 5-10 years later when it's a core compo…

> Who would risk building their company on a stack that you lose the license for if you do too well?

You could frame this in a different way and come to a different conclusion. Instead of describing OSS as a "stack you lose the license for if you do too well" you could say "stack you don't have to pay for unless you're successful".

Re: Problems With Open-Source Business Models

#29

Post by buboard » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 7:37 PM UTC

This is almost absolutely correct. Pity there isn't even a model to monetize the blog post, though. Monetization is a problem across the internet that seems to benefit the behemoths.

Perhaps we need a middle-ground between open source and proprietary? Open source often becomes a signal to find business partners with similar potential needs. Perhaps you could share source with only 'approved partners', so you can together make "some money" instead of ($0 xor $1billion)

Re: Problems With Open-Source Business Models

#30

Post by vortico » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 7:38 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #14

vortico wrote: post #7

>There is no Open Source Business Model. Careful about universal claims. https://vcvrack.com/ is an open-source business model and it works great for me.

It's a semantic point. There are companies that have created business models that are based on open source software and the open source development model in various ways. But open source, by itself, is not a business model. [ADDED: Any more than "proprietary software" is a business model.]

I see. It's an odd way to state that, but his (semantic) point makes sense now.