4 ms·

> I'm not sure what it means for the continued viability of open source. I believe you're conflating "open core" with with "open source". I don't believe that

> I'm not sure what it means for the continued viability of open source. I believe you're conflating "open core" with with "open source". I don't believe that open source needs a profit motive to exist and flourish. While this may be a blow to the open core FOSS business model, there are a number of other models that continue to exist that do not involve proprietary enterprise extensions. While these models may not be attractive to venture capitalists, they can certainly provide a way for developers to make money.

jrochkind1 8y ago
> I don't believe that open source needs a profit motive to exist and flourish. The question is, who is going to write open source projects at a complexity/polish level similar to ElasticSearch. And how are they going to pay their rent? People working on it need to pay the rent somehow. I am suggesting that the way people paid the rent while working on open source historically in the "first phase" of internet open source (doing it on the clock at jobs for which the open source was useful for their job role, but producing the open source was not their job) -- is no longer working to get software written at the complexity level of 2019 software, as software gets much more complex requiring more people coordinating with themselves and spending more hours. I agree, at least for the sake of argument, that "open core" is distasteful and problematic. I believe it was a response to the question of "how do we write open source and still earn a living." It may not be a satisfactory answer. I'm not sure what other answers exist. If there aren't better answers, open source will shrink, including by "open core" and such.
- spudlyo 8y ago
  I reject the notion that Elastic is in this situation because they need rent money. In my view, they're in this situation because they accepted over 100M in venture capital, and now those investors want to see a return. I believe that "open core" was not a response to the question of "how do we write open source and still earn a living?" but rather "how do we leverage open source to make a billion dollar company?". I think the distinction, however minor, is important.
  - jrochkind1 8y ago
    I find that a reasonable line of inquiry, but the obvious next question is: How would they have paid themselves salary without the venture capital? How would they have done open source and still earned a living without it? I am not sure there are obvious models/examples that are working. I think there's a reason that "open core" is an increasingly popular thing to try to do. I'm not sure if I can think of many earning a living while producing high-complexity high-quality open source software _except_ "open core". (And I still think "open core" is problematic for the continued viability of actual open source).
    - raiyu 8y ago
      Vue.js as an example
      - jrochkind1 8y ago
        Do you know how the people who work on vue.js get paid? Do they have fulltime jobs as employees? Do they get paid to work on vue.js? I find in general it's easier to get free labor on something the newer it is. Both because it's more exciting, and because the more 'mature' something gets the _more work it is_ for _less gain_, there's more time dealing with backwards compat and filing off rough edges and keeping the existing code just working, which is all less interesting to do for free. Plus, the more mature something is, the _more work_ it _takes_ to keep it going.
    - Drdrdrq 8y ago
      Well, there is an option of selling services which is even worse, both for developers and the product itself. Or, there are Fair Source License / Commons Clause / Business Source License /... that allow developers to capture some of the value they generate, but this of course means they are not open/free/libre because they limit some of the freedom to accomplish that. Pick your poison. :)
    - username223 8y ago
      Many of the most successful open source projects I can think of were funded by universities (Linux and Gnu) or natural monopolies (Unix). Their creators didn't become billionaires, but the sources of money were willing to pay them a comfortable living. Maybe it's the expectation that open source should be a massive fountain of wealth that is the real problem.

jrochkind1 8y ago

> I don't believe that open source needs a profit motive to exist and flourish. The question is, who is going to write open source projects at a complexity/polish level similar to ElasticSearch. And how are they going to pay their rent? People working on it need to pay the rent somehow. I am suggesting that the way people paid the rent while working on open source historically in the "first phase" of internet open source (doing it on the clock at jobs for which the open source was useful for their job role, but producing the open source was not their job) -- is no longer working to get software written at the complexity level of 2019 software, as software gets much more complex requiring more people coordinating with themselves and spending more hours. I agree, at least for the sake of argument, that "open core" is distasteful and problematic. I believe it was a response to the question of "how do we write open source and still earn a living." It may not be a satisfactory answer. I'm not sure what other answers exist. If there aren't better answers, open source will shrink, including by "open core" and such.

spudlyo 8y ago
I reject the notion that Elastic is in this situation because they need rent money. In my view, they're in this situation because they accepted over 100M in venture capital, and now those investors want to see a return. I believe that "open core" was not a response to the question of "how do we write open source and still earn a living?" but rather "how do we leverage open source to make a billion dollar company?". I think the distinction, however minor, is important.
- jrochkind1 8y ago
  I find that a reasonable line of inquiry, but the obvious next question is: How would they have paid themselves salary without the venture capital? How would they have done open source and still earned a living without it? I am not sure there are obvious models/examples that are working. I think there's a reason that "open core" is an increasingly popular thing to try to do. I'm not sure if I can think of many earning a living while producing high-complexity high-quality open source software _except_ "open core". (And I still think "open core" is problematic for the continued viability of actual open source).
  - raiyu 8y ago
    Vue.js as an example
    - jrochkind1 8y ago
      Do you know how the people who work on vue.js get paid? Do they have fulltime jobs as employees? Do they get paid to work on vue.js? I find in general it's easier to get free labor on something the newer it is. Both because it's more exciting, and because the more 'mature' something gets the _more work it is_ for _less gain_, there's more time dealing with backwards compat and filing off rough edges and keeping the existing code just working, which is all less interesting to do for free. Plus, the more mature something is, the _more work_ it _takes_ to keep it going.
  - Drdrdrq 8y ago
    Well, there is an option of selling services which is even worse, both for developers and the product itself. Or, there are Fair Source License / Commons Clause / Business Source License /... that allow developers to capture some of the value they generate, but this of course means they are not open/free/libre because they limit some of the freedom to accomplish that. Pick your poison. :)
  - username223 8y ago
    Many of the most successful open source projects I can think of were funded by universities (Linux and Gnu) or natural monopolies (Unix). Their creators didn't become billionaires, but the sources of money were willing to pay them a comfortable living. Maybe it's the expectation that open source should be a massive fountain of wealth that is the real problem.