5 ms·

Is it completely open source + optional paid hosting (I spent a few minutes reading but wasn't sure.) FWIW: Open Source client + server with optional paid host

Is it completely open source + optional paid hosting (I spent a few minutes reading but wasn't sure.) FWIW: Open Source client + server with optional paid hosting is my favourite. And it is not just words: I've been paying a few hosting services, both commercial and open source, for a few years. I like the assurance of open source but I often prefer to pay the people who make it to host it.

Drdrdrq 8y ago
A bit OT, but honest question: would it bother you if it was almost-open-source, that is, if license forbid leechers (other cloud providers selling competitive offering)? I am thinking of releasing a product under Apache + Common Clause, Zero License, Business Source License or similar, maybe with GPL timebomb. Basically, feel free to use, improve and share, but don't sell or offer it as a service to 3rd parties. I would love it if normal users could safely use the product and share improvements, but would still like to have a chance at building a business model which didn’t involve donations or selling just support (I want to be incentivized to build a great UX). Which means I am selling convenience, and probably can't compete with others if they can offer the same without the cost of development. Since you sound like exactly the target audience, would such a license appeal to you, or would you reject it up-front?
- electricEmu 8y ago
  I use StandardNotes and the Open Source aspect attracted me. I can run the parts if the company goes away. Today, I’ll pay SN a reasonable fee for convenience and future additions. The competition is Evernote if the software isn’t free. I feel like SN seeks convenience now. Licensing games are just another commercial competitor.
- gitgud 8y ago
  That's still completely opensource to me. It's just not Libre software as Richard Stallman would put it. I still think it's an attractive option for a lot of software and wouldn't deteur many users, as most people wouldn't even think of reselling it.
- mikekchar 8y ago
  No the OP, but as someone who is happy to pay for hosting, with free software, I would not be happy at all with your suggestion. In fact the original topic is really the reason I would not be happy. The original poster is asking how to build a new service since their service provider has become unresponsive. This is really the last straw. Ideally, as a consumer, you want to be able to potentially move to a new provider of the service using the same software. If you have to change software to change providers, then you are always having problems trying to get matching features, matching workflows, matching data stores, etc, etc. Interestingly, this is also why I don't generally use "open core" unless I only use the "open core" part and pay for hosting. Having the source code is useless because if the user wanted to host their own, they could use free software to begin with. They want hosting. I think as a service provider, you have to think pretty hard about the service you are providing. Having a cloud based server and keeping it up is pretty basic work. This is exactly why SaaS is so popular -- the actual day to day service is extremely small and cheap. The problem, as you very correctly perceive, is that larger providers can undercut you, very, very easily (because you are buying the actual service from them). They can cut out the middle man. So for a full free software service, you need to provide something other than hosting as the service. To be honest, one of the really attractive things about SaaS is that you go back to a model where you have an upfront, single time development cost for the software and then you sell it over and over and over again. In other words, you have a constant price with near infinite scaling. I think this is impossible with free software. I might be wrong, but I've thought through it for a number of decades and I can't see a way to do it :-). With free software (that has no intrinsic hardware or extensive person-oriented service involved) I think you have to charge for actual development time. I think there are inventive ways to do this (many of which have not been tried), but there is no way around it. I think what you are intending to offer has very little benefit for the user. Certainly, as someone who wants source code, I would not touch something with that license with a ten foot pole. If I were you, I would just go with SaaS or Open Core and be done with it. If you are really intent on providing useful source code for the user, then I think you have to come up with something that they want to buy. That thing has to be something that other people will have trouble competing against. For most programmers, that means development services.
  - Drdrdrq 8y ago
AdamGibbins 8y ago
The apps and server are both open source. There is also free hosting. The bit that is not open source is the "Extended" paid subscription which includes all this: https://standardnotes.org/extensions https://standardnotes.org/extensions Open source is split across multiple repos: https://github.com/standardfile/ruby-server https://github.com/standardfile/ruby-server https://github.com/standardnotes/web https://github.com/standardnotes/web https://github.com/standardnotes/desktop https://github.com/standardnotes/desktop https://github.com/standardnotes/mobile https://github.com/standardnotes/mobile

Drdrdrq 8y ago

A bit OT, but honest question: would it bother you if it was almost-open-source, that is, if license forbid leechers (other cloud providers selling competitive offering)? I am thinking of releasing a product under Apache + Common Clause, Zero License, Business Source License or similar, maybe with GPL timebomb. Basically, feel free to use, improve and share, but don't sell or offer it as a service to 3rd parties. I would love it if normal users could safely use the product and share improvements, but would still like to have a chance at building a business model which didn’t involve donations or selling just support (I want to be incentivized to build a great UX). Which means I am selling convenience, and probably can't compete with others if they can offer the same without the cost of development. Since you sound like exactly the target audience, would such a license appeal to you, or would you reject it up-front?

electricEmu 8y ago
I use StandardNotes and the Open Source aspect attracted me. I can run the parts if the company goes away. Today, I’ll pay SN a reasonable fee for convenience and future additions. The competition is Evernote if the software isn’t free. I feel like SN seeks convenience now. Licensing games are just another commercial competitor.
gitgud 8y ago
That's still completely opensource to me. It's just not Libre software as Richard Stallman would put it. I still think it's an attractive option for a lot of software and wouldn't deteur many users, as most people wouldn't even think of reselling it.
mikekchar 8y ago
No the OP, but as someone who is happy to pay for hosting, with free software, I would not be happy at all with your suggestion. In fact the original topic is really the reason I would not be happy. The original poster is asking how to build a new service since their service provider has become unresponsive. This is really the last straw. Ideally, as a consumer, you want to be able to potentially move to a new provider of the service using the same software. If you have to change software to change providers, then you are always having problems trying to get matching features, matching workflows, matching data stores, etc, etc. Interestingly, this is also why I don't generally use "open core" unless I only use the "open core" part and pay for hosting. Having the source code is useless because if the user wanted to host their own, they could use free software to begin with. They want hosting. I think as a service provider, you have to think pretty hard about the service you are providing. Having a cloud based server and keeping it up is pretty basic work. This is exactly why SaaS is so popular -- the actual day to day service is extremely small and cheap. The problem, as you very correctly perceive, is that larger providers can undercut you, very, very easily (because you are buying the actual service from them). They can cut out the middle man. So for a full free software service, you need to provide something other than hosting as the service. To be honest, one of the really attractive things about SaaS is that you go back to a model where you have an upfront, single time development cost for the software and then you sell it over and over and over again. In other words, you have a constant price with near infinite scaling. I think this is impossible with free software. I might be wrong, but I've thought through it for a number of decades and I can't see a way to do it :-). With free software (that has no intrinsic hardware or extensive person-oriented service involved) I think you have to charge for actual development time. I think there are inventive ways to do this (many of which have not been tried), but there is no way around it. I think what you are intending to offer has very little benefit for the user. Certainly, as someone who wants source code, I would not touch something with that license with a ten foot pole. If I were you, I would just go with SaaS or Open Core and be done with it. If you are really intent on providing useful source code for the user, then I think you have to come up with something that they want to buy. That thing has to be something that other people will have trouble competing against. For most programmers, that means development services.
- Drdrdrq 8y ago

AdamGibbins 8y ago

The apps and server are both open source. There is also free hosting. The bit that is not open source is the "Extended" paid subscription which includes all this: https://standardnotes.org/extensions https://standardnotes.org/extensions Open source is split across multiple repos: https://github.com/standardfile/ruby-server https://github.com/standardfile/ruby-server https://github.com/standardnotes/web https://github.com/standardnotes/web https://github.com/standardnotes/desktop https://github.com/standardnotes/desktop https://github.com/standardnotes/mobile https://github.com/standardnotes/mobile