3 ms·

3 popular OSS models: 1. 100% open source, funded by some entities, you can purchase subscription for its professional support and service. 2. 100% op

by ausjke 8y ago

3 popular OSS models: 1. 100% open source, funded by some entities, you can purchase subscription for its professional support and service. 2. 100% open source by volunteers and the community, document might be lacking but you got what you pay for. 3. open-core, only the core portion is open and you pay a premium for plugins or its enterprise-version/pro-version. I personally do not use option 3, and I think 1 is great for both sides.

scrollaway 8y ago
What is the practical difference between 1 and 3? Like, support aside, what's the difference between "pay a premium to access professional services from the dev team" and "pay a premium to access a service already professionally-built by the dev team"?
- testrun 8y ago
  Onion layers. 1. All layers are open source, but if you want support, you pay. 3. Core layers are open source, the top layers are proprietary.
  - scrollaway 8y ago
    It's not uncommon to request custom software modifications in case #1. Which brings you to case #3 in all but name.
    - egeozcan 8y ago
      #3 means the company will purposefully put very useful features out of scope of the core, while in #1, people expect everything that's not very custom to a specific use-case to be open-sourced eventually - which is usually the reality.
      - scrollaway 8y ago
        I get where you're coming from, but is that the reality? What I've seen in practice is that the useful features in question are only useful to very large companies, which is why they're gated. Logic being, "if you're in need of this, you most definitely can afford the premium product, and we'd like you to be sponsoring our work since it's necessary for you to make money". Is it better to let the open source project die on the Hill of Principles, and have nobody actually benefit from the potential wasted work?
- KajMagnus 8y ago
  For a company that can create its own professionals related to the product, only alt 1 (but not 3) will be free. For example, not all people feel the need to buy RHEL support; they use CentOS instead.

by ausjke 8y ago

scrollaway 8y ago

What is the practical difference between 1 and 3? Like, support aside, what's the difference between "pay a premium to access professional services from the dev team" and "pay a premium to access a service already professionally-built by the dev team"?

testrun 8y ago
Onion layers. 1. All layers are open source, but if you want support, you pay. 3. Core layers are open source, the top layers are proprietary.
- scrollaway 8y ago
  It's not uncommon to request custom software modifications in case #1. Which brings you to case #3 in all but name.
  - egeozcan 8y ago
    #3 means the company will purposefully put very useful features out of scope of the core, while in #1, people expect everything that's not very custom to a specific use-case to be open-sourced eventually - which is usually the reality.
    - scrollaway 8y ago
      I get where you're coming from, but is that the reality? What I've seen in practice is that the useful features in question are only useful to very large companies, which is why they're gated. Logic being, "if you're in need of this, you most definitely can afford the premium product, and we'd like you to be sponsoring our work since it's necessary for you to make money". Is it better to let the open source project die on the Hill of Principles, and have nobody actually benefit from the potential wasted work?
KajMagnus 8y ago
For a company that can create its own professionals related to the product, only alt 1 (but not 3) will be free. For example, not all people feel the need to buy RHEL support; they use CentOS instead.