3 ms·

The problem with this model is that quite a few of these open source companies are funded by VCs. In this case, a “consortium” is just never going to cut it, re

The problem with this model is that quite a few of these open source companies are funded by VCs. In this case, a “consortium” is just never going to cut it, revenue-wise. The most profitable way appears to be to offer a cloud-hosted solution, and herein lies precisely the problem with AWS et al providing these services by taking the OSS software for free.

cryptonector 8y ago
I don't see the problem. First, SQLite's developers are not an open source company funded by VCs. I don't know what funding they had originally, but they've leveraged their success into a well-funded consortium. Does it matter if it could or could not work in combination with VC funding? No: what matters is that the developers got funding, end of story. Second, I don't see why a company (regardless of funding source) couldn't spin off a consortium to fund further development of some open source created by that company. Your goal seems to be "profit", which is a fine business goal. Open source is a fine business tool, but not so much a fine business _goal_. It can help you profit, but it can also hinder. Open source is a business tool to be applied on a case-by-case basis. Open source is not easy to use as a core business value. That's because the most important core value to any public corporation is profit, and open source does not intrinsically lead to profit. Building a for-profit business around open source projects with open source as a core business value is undoubtedly difficult. Indeed, the example I gave is of a non-for-profit organization that funds development of one project. Open source is a tool with following costs and benefits (and risks), some of which are: - cost: loss of confidentiality for "secret sauce" embodied in open source - cost: the cost of opening a code base and keeping it open - cost: dealing with a community - benefit: good will - benefit: mind share (this is the big one) - benefit: quality (hopefully) contributions from the community - benefit: credit (especially for developers, which functions as a form of compensation and recruitment incentives) If for some project open source is a tool whose costs exceed the benefits, then don't open source that project. It's that simple.

cryptonector 8y ago

I don't see the problem. First, SQLite's developers are not an open source company funded by VCs. I don't know what funding they had originally, but they've leveraged their success into a well-funded consortium. Does it matter if it could or could not work in combination with VC funding? No: what matters is that the developers got funding, end of story. Second, I don't see why a company (regardless of funding source) couldn't spin off a consortium to fund further development of some open source created by that company. Your goal seems to be "profit", which is a fine business goal. Open source is a fine business tool, but not so much a fine business _goal_. It can help you profit, but it can also hinder. Open source is a business tool to be applied on a case-by-case basis. Open source is not easy to use as a core business value. That's because the most important core value to any public corporation is profit, and open source does not intrinsically lead to profit. Building a for-profit business around open source projects with open source as a core business value is undoubtedly difficult. Indeed, the example I gave is of a non-for-profit organization that funds development of one project. Open source is a tool with following costs and benefits (and risks), some of which are: - cost: loss of confidentiality for "secret sauce" embodied in open source - cost: the cost of opening a code base and keeping it open - cost: dealing with a community - benefit: good will - benefit: mind share (this is the big one) - benefit: quality (hopefully) contributions from the community - benefit: credit (especially for developers, which functions as a form of compensation and recruitment incentives) If for some project open source is a tool whose costs exceed the benefits, then don't open source that project. It's that simple.