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

Open Source, SaaS and Monetization

lucumr.pocoo.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 71 posts

Re: Open Source, SaaS and Monetization

#21

Post by thebigshane »

quaffapint wrote: post #14

For my upcoming saas I wanted to do something similar... -Paid hosted saas solution -Freely downloadable to use and install for your own projects ...I want people to be allowed to make money with it even if they freely download it, but I just don't want them to be able to compete with my hosted saas. I'm not quite sure that this is what the BSL is saying, so is there a license for something like that?

I think that is what Armin was looking for as well, but couldn't find anything that quite did that so settled on the BSL instead (probably because determining what fork qualifies as competing or not seems hard). BSL seems close, but seems to disallow any commercial usage (IANAL!)?

Re: Open Source, SaaS and Monetization

#22

Post by japhyr »

ensignavenger wrote: post #20
japhyr wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been aware of Sentry for years, but I've never used it and haven't followed the company closely. Reading Armin's post, and the official Sentry announcement [0], this strikes me as pretty reasonable. Sentry is about 11 years old. The industry has changed a lot in 11 years. There are people and companies around now that can build direct competitors more quickly than they could 11 years ago. The question raised i…

As I said, Sentry doesn't owe new open source code to anyone. Deciding to make new releases closed is acceptable. However, they have repeatedly made statements that they are committed to open source- some only months before this announcement. The 11 year old decision argument doesn't hold true. They have a right to change their mind. But they shouldn't be lying to their customers and the community now that their mind…

What label would you like them to use? What is the accepted name for a middle ground license now? Should they be advertising themselves as a "business source" company rather than an "open source" company?

I don't ask this antagonistically, it's an honest question. I don't think they've shifted so much that they're just a standard company trying to make money off of proprietary software at this point.

"You can host your own service, or you can pay us to host the service, but you can't host the service and charge others for our service" is a business model I'd like to see continue.

Re: Open Source, SaaS and Monetization

#23

Post by progval »

quaffapint wrote: post #14

For my upcoming saas I wanted to do something similar... -Paid hosted saas solution -Freely downloadable to use and install for your own projects ...I want people to be allowed to make money with it even if they freely download it, but I just don't want them to be able to compete with my hosted saas. I'm not quite sure that this is what the BSL is saying, so is there a license for something like that?

This is mostly the goal of MongoDB's license, the Service-Side Public License:

> A company that offers a publicly available MongoDB as a service must release the software it uses to offer such service under the terms of the SSPL, including the management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the source code made available.

https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license...

Re: Open Source, SaaS and Monetization

#24

Post by seanwilson »

I work on a paid Chrome extension that tests if your website follows SEO, speed and security best practices:

https://www.checkbot.io/

I considered making it open source but couldn't see a way I could monetise it if I tried to charge for it mainly because someone could just upload a free version to the Chrome Web Store. Open sourcing a project also opens you up to taking on a lot more responsibilities as well (e.g. reviewing pull requests, on-boarding new developers, maintaining code standards) and you risk losing control of your own project if you're not careful. Helping users with support requests is already enough work when you're a solo developer too.

Generally, I guess you have to weigh up:

1) time investment from open sourcing and maintaining a community vs

2) benefits you'll get from having open source contributors vs

3) increased competition from the open source version

With some app ideas, it's very hard to reduce the impact of factor 3 which is a shame.

Re: Open Source, SaaS and Monetization

#25

Post by danShumway »

jboynyc wrote: post #7
danShumway wrote: post #5

> Open Source is pretty clear cut: it does not discriminate. If you get the source, you can do with it what you want (within the terms of the license) and no matter who you are (within the terms of the license). However as Open Source is defined — and also how I see it — Open Source comes with no strings attached. The moment we restrict what you can do with it — like not compete — it becomes something else. I appreci…

You might also be interested in this essay on "proprietary relicensing" from the Software Freedom Conservancy: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/jan/06/copyleft-equality...

I am! This was an interesting read, thanks.

In particular, I fee like the comment on copyright assignment is an insightful way of explaining why these approaches to licensing often feel inconsistent with company claims to support 'Openness':

> If an entity does not gladly bind itself by its own copyleft license (for example, by accepting third-party contributions to its codebases under that license), we should not treat that entity as a legitimate license steward, nor treat that license as a legitimate FOSS license.

Re: Open Source, SaaS and Monetization

#26

Post by TAForObvReasons »

japhyr wrote: post #22
ensignavenger wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said, Sentry doesn't owe new open source code to anyone. Deciding to make new releases closed is acceptable. However, they have repeatedly made statements that they are committed to open source- some only months before this announcement. The 11 year old decision argument doesn't hold true. They have a right to change their mind. But they shouldn't be lying to their customers and the community now that their mind…

What label would you like them to use? What is the accepted name for a middle ground license now? Should they be advertising themselves as a "business source" company rather than an "open source" company? I don't ask this antagonistically, it's an honest question. I don't think they've shifted so much that they're just a standard company trying to make money off of proprietary software at this point. "You can host yo…

There's a term for "proprietary projects whose source is available on GitHub", namely "source available". "Open Source" != "source available", and attempts to describe one as the other are clearly attempts to deceive

Re: Open Source, SaaS and Monetization

#27

Post by soumyadeb »

We have been thinking about this a lot for our open-source Segment project (https://github.com/rudderlabs/rudder-server/). We launched things under mongo-SSPL (which is not a OSS approved license) but we now think AGPL is probably good enough for a product like ours. AGPL should kick in for anything (e.g. mobile app) that sends events to the our AGPL-backend so needs to be open-sourced too - that should be a strong enough deterrent for anyone to offer this as a service. Is this statement true? If yes, why did Mongo with with SSPL instead of AGPL?

At the same time, we still want businesses who don't care about OSS to use Rudder without having to open-source their code. To address that we are thinking of releasing our binary (and AMI images etc) under MIT license. Sure, someone can spin up a SaaS service on the binary but that's hard.

Any feedback on this would be highly appreciated.

Re: Open Source, SaaS and Monetization

#28

Post by danenania »

I don't believe we've been served well by defining the term "Open Source" to also necessarily mean "Free". This definition and the accompanying zealotry mainly serves big tech and the cloud providers. Everyone else would be better off if we as an industry also make room for software that is Open (in the sense that the code is freely available), but not Free (you must pay or obtain permission to run it yourself, re-distribute it, or run it for others).

Open is almost universally good. Open means self-hosting, auditability, ability to patch/submit patches for problems yourself, and not being up shit creek if the provider folds.

But Free? Free might not always be bad, but it has a lot of problems. Free = a race to the bottom. Free = ads. Free = selling user data. Free = no one cares enough to maintain it. Free = no one cares enough to promote it. Free = no one can afford to hire a UX designer. Free = ripped off by AWS. Free = bait and switch when the VC gets impatient.

For all these reasons, you should demand access to the code, yes, but you should also be willing to pay the people who write the crucial software you rely on. It's far more sustainable and healthier for our industry.

Re: Open Source, SaaS and Monetization

#29

Post by soumyadeb »

danenania wrote: post #28

I don't believe we've been served well by defining the term "Open Source" to also necessarily mean "Free". This definition and the accompanying zealotry mainly serves big tech and the cloud providers. Everyone else would be better off if we as an industry also make room for software that is Open (in the sense that the code is freely available), but not Free (you must pay or obtain permission to run it yourself, re-di…

Stallman keeps saying Free of OSS is "Freedom of Speech" not "Free Beer". However, the "Free Beer" part is also important - there won't be any startup if every software (open-code or not) required big license fees.

Sure, the open-code part is very valuable for all the reasons you mention. However, people writing code altruistically has also been extremely valuable for getting us where we are today.

Re: Open Source, SaaS and Monetization

#30

Post by danenania »

soumyadeb wrote: post #29
danenania wrote: post #28

I don't believe we've been served well by defining the term "Open Source" to also necessarily mean "Free". This definition and the accompanying zealotry mainly serves big tech and the cloud providers. Everyone else would be better off if we as an industry also make room for software that is Open (in the sense that the code is freely available), but not Free (you must pay or obtain permission to run it yourself, re-di…

Stallman keeps saying Free of OSS is "Freedom of Speech" not "Free Beer". However, the "Free Beer" part is also important - there won't be any startup if every software (open-code or not) required big license fees. Sure, the open-code part is very valuable for all the reasons you mention. However, people writing code altruistically has also been extremely valuable for getting us where we are today.

"Sure, the open-code part is very valuable for all the reasons you mention. However, people writing code altruistically has also been extremely valuable for getting us where we are today."

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. My problem is with the many folks who automatically discount anything that is not "Free Beer". This attitude seems to be quite pervasive, unfortunately.

Post reply on HN