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

Generating Income from Open Source

vadimdemedes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 126 posts

Re: Generating Income from Open Source

#41

Post by amadvance »

ximm wrote: post #27
memefrog wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not "virtually closed source" to license something as GPLv3 and also under a proprietary license. In fact, it is something explicitly advocated for by Richard Stallman himself and the Free Software Foundation generally: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions He's got mixed feelings, but says "I consider selling exceptions an acceptable thing for a company to do, and I will suggest it where appropriate…

There is a subtle but important difference here though: If you publish a piece of software under two licenses, one open source and one commercial, why would anybody pick the commercial one? You cannot say "corporations have to pick the commercial one". The only way to do that would be to include a term in the open source license so it cannot be used by corporations. But then it would no longer meet the open source de…

> Why would anybody pick the commercial one?

The OpenSource license is typically GPLv3 that imposes that your whole application has to be GPLv3. This is enough for corporations to avoid it.

Re: Generating Income from Open Source

#42

Post by ThinkBeat »

[old person rant]

There is nothing wrong with developing software and selling it. It used to be the norm and it is still quite common.

These days "open source" is virtue signaling and expected "to be cool". That people then grump about not being paid shows that they are not particularly interested in the concept of open source.

However, the term open source has been used for so many different things that is has lost most shared coherent meaning. I guess that is why "Libre Software" is now being used by some.

What is plain hypocrisy to me are the people who developed "for profit" open source projects, and are angry when they dont get paid enough, when the projects they have created rely on GNU tools, the Linux kernel (Perhaps Debian), a libre software database on so on.

Their product is built on the shoulders and sacrifice of other open-source folks that often is not getting paid or not paid enough.

For profit open source should have clause of donating X% of profits downstream to the open-source projects they rely on. (Since they would have no product without them)

There are some core and vital open-source projects that have enormous importance for millions. I think supporting them should be a priority.

A lot of modern software is "open source" until it become inconvenient and they introduce "Pro", or "see source", or shift license entirely.

A lot of companies should just be "for profit". There is nothing wrong with it and nothing wrong with making money, or making money off of open source. I do nitpick on people who see open source as a way to get paid and they are angry if they dont get it.

Re: Generating Income from Open Source

#43

Post by cttet »

monero-xmr wrote: post #2

Charging for a commercial license is virtual closed-source. You have reinvented selling software, except with a “try before you buy” model that enables engineers to vet its utility first before paying, with free usage for non-profits (i.e. other non-profit devs). I’m not making any comment about the merits of this model. I strictly make and sell closed-source software (SaaS). But it’s funny to me that this is essenti…

> “Open Source” is in the name only.

Hard to imagine this can be upvoted to this high.

"Open Source" just means that the source code is open, not closed.

Some people just like the source code to be open (e.g. for security reasons to examine the source code.).

It is just as simple as that.

Re: Generating Income from Open Source

#44

Post by pcthrowaway »

While we're here, does anyone know if a sole proprietorship donating to OS projects for "sponsorship" (aka listing the donor company's name in the project's github) is deductible as Advertising expenses? Specifically wondering about Canada personally, but I'm sure people in the U.S. would benefit from this knowledge as well.

Our tax law (in Canada) is so opaque, and I feel like finding ways for these monetary contributions to be deductible as business expenses would make it so much easier for businesses to justify the expense.

If donations can't be written off, OS projects would then do well to add a paid tier with some useless exclusive functionality, just so donors can make it a software expense.

Re: Generating Income from Open Source

#45

Post by LudwigNagasena »

godelski wrote: post #7
monero-xmr wrote: post #2

Charging for a commercial license is virtual closed-source. You have reinvented selling software, except with a “try before you buy” model that enables engineers to vet its utility first before paying, with free usage for non-profits (i.e. other non-profit devs). I’m not making any comment about the merits of this model. I strictly make and sell closed-source software (SaaS). But it’s funny to me that this is essenti…

I really think these kinds of comments are counter productive to people seeing source available software (SAS, OSS, FOSS, or all three). Free to the public but not corporate is clearly not "try before you buy" and is a gross misinterpretation of this. I don't care what Citizens United ruling said, corporations are not the same as people and we should distinguish them as such. This model is in no way functionally simi…

> I don't care what Citizens United ruling said, corporations are not the same as people and we should distinguish them as such.

Every law system in the world distinguishes natural personhood from legal personhood. If you've heard somewhere that Citizens Unite ruling said that corporations and people are the same, you've been lied to and disinformed.

Re: Generating Income from Open Source

#47

Post by pydry »

ezekg wrote: post #16
memefrog wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Source available" is not open source and has nothing to do with open source. Open source never confused people until bad-faith actors started intentionally trying to confuse them by labeling things that aren't open source as "open source". Open source has a precise definition and it has had it for decades . If you describe your software as open source and it is not available under an open source license then you are…

> The only place I've ever seen anyone pretend that "open source" can legitimately mean something other than the OSI's definition is on this forum. I don’t think this is entirely accurate in practice. I talk to businesses, individuals, and enterprises every single day and they all refer to my SAS as open source software. So I don’t think everybody sees OSS like you and OSI wills them to. I’m stepping on toes by sayin…

>The only places I’ve seen this dogma is here on HN, in GitHub issues about gaslighting [^0], and on r/opensource.

Part of the problem is the "Open Software Foundation" likes to take a bunch of corporate money and then pen definitions of what "really is" and "really isn't" open source that people pick up on.

Re: Generating Income from Open Source

#48

Post by tm-guimaraes »

ThinkBeat wrote: post #42

[old person rant] There is nothing wrong with developing software and selling it. It used to be the norm and it is still quite common. These days "open source" is virtue signaling and expected "to be cool". That people then grump about not being paid shows that they are not particularly interested in the concept of open source. However, the term open source has been used for so many different things that is has lost…

Sourcehut seems to be an exception here, Drew not only has a profitable open source business, he not only contributes upstream, but also donate to open source projects.

Re: Generating Income from Open Source

#49

Post by AntonCTO »

It is not a widely held opinion, but I enjoy, or even prefer, using BSL-licensed products like CockroachDB or ElasticSearch. The license grants me the freedom to use them as I wish, with the exception of competing with their cloud services. Additionally, there is a high probability that these products have a sustainable business model and will continue to be developed.

Re: Generating Income from Open Source

#50

Post by teddyh »

ThinkBeat wrote: post #42

[old person rant] There is nothing wrong with developing software and selling it. It used to be the norm and it is still quite common. These days "open source" is virtue signaling and expected "to be cool". That people then grump about not being paid shows that they are not particularly interested in the concept of open source. However, the term open source has been used for so many different things that is has lost…

> There is nothing wrong with developing software and selling it.

Sure, but the FSF (and others) may have an opinion on the license given to the paying customers, in order to not restrict them.

Otherwise, spot on; Open source is not a business model: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32287432>

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31293455>

Post reply on HN