4 ms·

lets see theres training, and consulting, theres offer the free version, and charge for a more robust paid version, theres pay for customization and don't forge

lets see theres training, and consulting, theres offer the free version, and charge for a more robust paid version, theres pay for customization and don't forget ads. There are many ways to have a business model around "free software". Red Hat, Canonical, and Google are just some of the companies that have found valid business models around "free software".

bad_user 17y ago
> Red Hat, Canonical, and Google are just some of the companies that have found valid business models around "free software". That's a fallacy. The majority of open-source sponsors are selling closed systems or services to sponsor their "free software" involvement. Google doesn't have a business model around "free software". Neither does IBM or Sun. I'm also not Mozilla and my apps would probably never get in front of 40% of all Internet users. Even if I'm that lucky, it's probably not going to be a desktop app that's used to search for stuff. To get paid for customizations, your software also has to be really popular for businesses (consumers don't pay for that, they either endure it or search for something better). Did I mentioned that I don't live in Silicon Valley nor in Cambridge, but in an Eastern European country? So training is off. I already mentioned consulting, but then I would be a hypocrite if I promoted the free software ideology while working on the worst kind of closed software, wouldn't I? Anything else?
- viraptor 17y ago
  > Did I mentioned that I don't live in Silicon Valley nor in Cambridge, but in an Eastern European country? So training is off. Maybe you should have a look at this again... I've been on a trip to Romania for training (about architecture of some specific piece of OSS) at some point. As long as you can provide good training, it could work for you too.
- nailer 17y ago
  > > Red Hat, Canonical, and Google are just some of the companies that have found valid business models around "free software". > That's a fallacy. > The majority of open-source sponsors are selling closed systems or services to sponsor their "free software" involvement. Red Hat, Canonical and a large chunk of IBM GS wouldn't be able to sell those services with proprietary products - the OSS licensing of various Linux OSs, Apache, etc. are the basis for them being able to have an audience to sell their services. I agree with you re: Google. They're not a service business and could have written their own OS or used a proprietary one and not affect revenue.
  - stcredzero 17y ago
    I agree with you re: Google. They're not a service business and could have written their own OS or used a proprietary one and not affect revenue. Not sure what licensing fees would have done to their overhead costs in the early days.
tedunangst 17y ago
Does Canonical make a profit? A business model that loses money isn't really all that valid. And the software that makes Google their money is proprietary, unless you can show me the link to the AdWords server source.
- jackowayed 17y ago
  Phusion (makers of Ruby Enterprise Edition and Phusion Passenger) definitely make a profit. I think they basically just do it through consulting + a little support and training. (See http://phusion.nl/services http://phusion.nl/services). But since they wrote Passenger and REE, I'm sure they can command a very high rate.

bad_user 17y ago

> Red Hat, Canonical, and Google are just some of the companies that have found valid business models around "free software". That's a fallacy. The majority of open-source sponsors are selling closed systems or services to sponsor their "free software" involvement. Google doesn't have a business model around "free software". Neither does IBM or Sun. I'm also not Mozilla and my apps would probably never get in front of 40% of all Internet users. Even if I'm that lucky, it's probably not going to be a desktop app that's used to search for stuff. To get paid for customizations, your software also has to be really popular for businesses (consumers don't pay for that, they either endure it or search for something better). Did I mentioned that I don't live in Silicon Valley nor in Cambridge, but in an Eastern European country? So training is off. I already mentioned consulting, but then I would be a hypocrite if I promoted the free software ideology while working on the worst kind of closed software, wouldn't I? Anything else?

viraptor 17y ago
> Did I mentioned that I don't live in Silicon Valley nor in Cambridge, but in an Eastern European country? So training is off. Maybe you should have a look at this again... I've been on a trip to Romania for training (about architecture of some specific piece of OSS) at some point. As long as you can provide good training, it could work for you too.
nailer 17y ago
> > Red Hat, Canonical, and Google are just some of the companies that have found valid business models around "free software". > That's a fallacy. > The majority of open-source sponsors are selling closed systems or services to sponsor their "free software" involvement. Red Hat, Canonical and a large chunk of IBM GS wouldn't be able to sell those services with proprietary products - the OSS licensing of various Linux OSs, Apache, etc. are the basis for them being able to have an audience to sell their services. I agree with you re: Google. They're not a service business and could have written their own OS or used a proprietary one and not affect revenue.
- stcredzero 17y ago
  I agree with you re: Google. They're not a service business and could have written their own OS or used a proprietary one and not affect revenue. Not sure what licensing fees would have done to their overhead costs in the early days.

tedunangst 17y ago

Does Canonical make a profit? A business model that loses money isn't really all that valid. And the software that makes Google their money is proprietary, unless you can show me the link to the AdWords server source.

jackowayed 17y ago
Phusion (makers of Ruby Enterprise Edition and Phusion Passenger) definitely make a profit. I think they basically just do it through consulting + a little support and training. (See http://phusion.nl/services http://phusion.nl/services). But since they wrote Passenger and REE, I'm sure they can command a very high rate.