3 ms·

Just want to respond to the statement: > The makers of the software get NOTHING I think one of the biggest problems with many free and open source projects is

Just want to respond to the statement: > The makers of the software get NOTHING I think one of the biggest problems with many free and open source projects is that they don't have viable business plans. This is fine if what you are hoping to get out of your project is a hobby. But it's not fine when taken in the context that I think you are using it in (wrt to getting nothing). I think you are right, in a way, about the GPL. It is great because it pretty much stops anybody from competing against you with your own code. Presumably, you have the advantage since you wrote the code and they can't come in, whack some proprietary lock in code and take all your customers (simultaneously stopping them from migrating to your free platform). But that doesn't mean you can't make money. The one thing I will say is that the normal technique of "write it and they will come" is not going to work because, why the heck would they pay for something they can get for free? So a reasonable free software business plan is almost always going to involve getting paid up front. Once you understand that point, it's a bit easier to imagine working solutions.

catdog 10y ago
> I think one of the biggest problems with many free and open source projects is that they don't have viable business plans. This is fine if what you are hoping to get out of your project is a hobby. But it's not fine when taken in the context that I think you are using it in (wrt to getting nothing). Especially true with widely used but rarely noticed "infrastructure" projects which provide a high value to many organizations and there should be a high incentive to ensure their continued development and maintenance but not at lot of money or outside contributions reaches them.
- angry_octet 10y ago
  I think this was highlighted quite well by the recent awareness of OpenSSL and GPG funding problems. They can at least get some publicity because of the security context. There are heaps of smaller projects which are absolutely critical, arcane and sometimes invisible. The syslinux and pxeboot tools for example. https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisstokelwalker/the-internet-is-being-protected-by-two-guys-named-st https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisstokelwalker/the-internet-is-b... https://www.propublica.org/article/the-worlds-email-encryption-software-relies-on-one-guy-who-is-going-broke https://www.propublica.org/article/the-worlds-email-encrypti...

catdog 10y ago

> I think one of the biggest problems with many free and open source projects is that they don't have viable business plans. This is fine if what you are hoping to get out of your project is a hobby. But it's not fine when taken in the context that I think you are using it in (wrt to getting nothing). Especially true with widely used but rarely noticed "infrastructure" projects which provide a high value to many organizations and there should be a high incentive to ensure their continued development and maintenance but not at lot of money or outside contributions reaches them.

angry_octet 10y ago
I think this was highlighted quite well by the recent awareness of OpenSSL and GPG funding problems. They can at least get some publicity because of the security context. There are heaps of smaller projects which are absolutely critical, arcane and sometimes invisible. The syslinux and pxeboot tools for example. https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisstokelwalker/the-internet-is-being-protected-by-two-guys-named-st https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisstokelwalker/the-internet-is-b... https://www.propublica.org/article/the-worlds-email-encryption-software-relies-on-one-guy-who-is-going-broke https://www.propublica.org/article/the-worlds-email-encrypti...