4 ms·

When you publish open source, this is what you sign up for. As a publisher of open source software, I think "open core" does a huge disservice to the community

When you publish open source, this is what you sign up for. As a publisher of open source software, I think "open core" does a huge disservice to the community as it feels deceptive. While there is no denying that creators needs to be paid, communities thrive on freedom and openness, and dual licensing takes that away. Companies that publish open source must realize that they cannot make money from the "software". Open source gives companies a brand, that they can then leverage to do other services like support, consulting, hosting, merchandise, events, etc. There was a time when service companies wanted to move into products because of high margins and artificial scarcity, but enough open source will ensure that software licensing is not a sustainable model to seek rent, and product companies must also move to services to be able to grow and sustain.

Lockd 8y ago
Well said. The issue is most of the core devs don't want to touch "support, consulting, hosting". It's a mental block. They think they can skip around doing only the "cool" stuff.
- zenlikethat 8y ago
  Many OSS companies have no problem with that. It's more of a problem that users demand features and consulting without rendering payment.
anth_anm 8y ago
I think Amazon does a much bigger disservice. > but enough open source will ensure that software licensing is not a sustainable model to seek rent So your solution to this is to just make it so no one can make money doing work. Except Jeff. Jeff gets all the money.
- hnarn 8y ago
  Looking at it rationally, is furthering open source admirable when it's done by a community activist, and loathsome when it's done by someone who has a business interest in the exact same outcome? Why isn't the end result the most important part of the equation? If a stronger, open sourced Elasticsearch comes out of this, why is that a bad thing because it was backed by Amazon?
- skywhopper 8y ago
  Just be honest, and don't pretend to be open source, when you are attempting to harness goodwill towards open source in order to make a buck. As pointed out, ES builds on the work of hundreds of other contributors to other open source projects. Is Elastic compensating those developers?
  - weberc2 8y ago
    > don't pretend to be open source In my mind, a company that makes lots of free contributes to open source is an open-source-friendly company, but this thread and the other on the Elastic post made me realize just how many people think that a True Open Source Company (whatever that means) should prefer to go out of business to dealing in proprietary software. I personally don't care for any of these puritanical viewpoints that deny economic realities (there's only so much a person or a collective can afford to give away for free, money doesn't grow on trees, etc). Open source is good, but thriving, sustainable open source depends on a symbiotic relationship with for-profit institutions.
indalo 8y ago
Reminds me exactly of an article I read this once. It's about the concept of companies commoditizing their product's complement.[1] AWS sells hosting/infra, for them lowering the entry barrier is beneficial. (I'm not taking sides just a thought) [1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/

Lockd 8y ago

Well said. The issue is most of the core devs don't want to touch "support, consulting, hosting". It's a mental block. They think they can skip around doing only the "cool" stuff.

zenlikethat 8y ago
Many OSS companies have no problem with that. It's more of a problem that users demand features and consulting without rendering payment.

anth_anm 8y ago

I think Amazon does a much bigger disservice. > but enough open source will ensure that software licensing is not a sustainable model to seek rent So your solution to this is to just make it so no one can make money doing work. Except Jeff. Jeff gets all the money.

hnarn 8y ago
Looking at it rationally, is furthering open source admirable when it's done by a community activist, and loathsome when it's done by someone who has a business interest in the exact same outcome? Why isn't the end result the most important part of the equation? If a stronger, open sourced Elasticsearch comes out of this, why is that a bad thing because it was backed by Amazon?
skywhopper 8y ago
Just be honest, and don't pretend to be open source, when you are attempting to harness goodwill towards open source in order to make a buck. As pointed out, ES builds on the work of hundreds of other contributors to other open source projects. Is Elastic compensating those developers?
- weberc2 8y ago
  > don't pretend to be open source In my mind, a company that makes lots of free contributes to open source is an open-source-friendly company, but this thread and the other on the Elastic post made me realize just how many people think that a True Open Source Company (whatever that means) should prefer to go out of business to dealing in proprietary software. I personally don't care for any of these puritanical viewpoints that deny economic realities (there's only so much a person or a collective can afford to give away for free, money doesn't grow on trees, etc). Open source is good, but thriving, sustainable open source depends on a symbiotic relationship with for-profit institutions.

indalo 8y ago

Reminds me exactly of an article I read this once. It's about the concept of companies commoditizing their product's complement.[1] AWS sells hosting/infra, for them lowering the entry barrier is beneficial. (I'm not taking sides just a thought) [1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/