7 ms·

I wonder what would happen if someone started an open source software "vendor" run along the lines of public radio / podcasts. Open source licensed (using a reg

I wonder what would happen if someone started an open source software "vendor" run along the lines of public radio / podcasts. Open source licensed (using a regular GPL or other license, nothing new or tricky), but a prominent encouragement to donate it you find it useful. Those donations could then be used to hire full-time developers, and work on the kinds of software that is currently not well served by open-source (TurboTax replacements, games, office software). Just as with public radio or podcasts, the price signal of donations would encourage certain kinds of products to be produced according to demand instead of enjoyment or itch scratching, but the end product would still have the benefits of open source, no license keys or DRM to worry about. I expect 99% of people would freeload as they do with public radio, but that's ok, even a small participation rate could result in new kinds of open source software being produced, and a sustainable career path for creators.

Already__Taken 8y ago
Look at nuxt.js you get a funding update after you npm install it
est31 8y ago
Godot engine has this model. They are getting donations from patreon [1], enough to pay 2 people full time at the center of the project. Wikipedia is another project which is doing this very successfully. But in general, those methods bring you much less money than if you were proprietary, because as you rightfully point out, most people are "freeloaders". [1]: https://www.patreon.com/godotengine https://www.patreon.com/godotengine
- Insanity 8y ago
  to nitpick, but to me the term 'freeloaders' has a negative connotation and I don't think it should in the case of FOSS. Being able to use it for free is quite literally the point of FOSS. Apart from that, you make good points :)
  - est31 8y ago
    You have a point. I've added " around it.
  - bolzano 8y ago
    Do you mean free as in beer, or free as in speech here? I'm still honing my understanding of FOSS, and I'm not 100% sure that FOSS means free as in beer.
    - the_pwner224 8y ago
      > I'm not 100% sure that FOSS means free as in beer. It doesn't. The only requirements for licenses like GPL, etc. is that anyone who you distribute a binary to can ask you for the source code, and you must provide it for a reasonable fee (for GPL it's "for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source", and you must provide the source on request for as long as you offer support for the binary blob, with a minimum of three years). https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html Can't find it now, but I recall finding a link here (by the developer(s) of curl iirc) about how his BMW had a screen with the free software credits and BMW sent him a CD with the source when he requested it. Edit: couldn't find that BMW article, but here are a few interesting links related to that: https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2018/08/12/a-hundred-million-cars-run-curl/ https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2018/08/12/a-hundred-million-car... (multiple BMW screenshots in this page) https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2016/10/03/screenshotted-curl-credits/ https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2016/10/03/screenshotted-curl-cr...
      - dfox 8y ago
        The ability to somehow acquire the source is one of the requirements, but from the making money PoV it is not that significant. What is significant for this discussion is that another GPL requirement is that whoever you distribute software to is permitted to redistribute however they see fit.
    - dancek 8y ago
      Free software is about freedoms, but also tends to be available for free. Consider this: if I sold a piece of free software for $1000 and the buyer was free to share its source code, wouldn't they? Even if no actual user shared the code, a trader could buy the software and sell it onward for $500 to as many people as possible. The next trader would buy for $500 and sell copies for $100, etc. Now, the software might be difficult to build or run or use, and the vendor might be actually selling binaries, or the software as a service, or documentation, or consultation, etc. Those can be valid business models even if the source code is freely available. So theoretically, yes, free software could cost money. But its source code tends to be free as in beer, too. Freedom is much more valuable than the saved money, and that's why free beer gets scoffed at.
- snaky 8y ago
  Chinese livestreaming industry is based on donations, so-called 'virtual gifts', and top streamers can make $100,000 a month or more.
  - YayamiOmate 8y ago
    That's more of an entertainment business, basically based on watching. Streamers are nothing else than sports arenas imho. or musicians. It's not so easy to get 10k people watch you code. I'd like to see it though.
    - snaky 8y ago
      It doesn't have to be restricted to livecoding. What about authors of the software you use answer to your questions? Well, to be creative, how much would you pay to watch Stallman dance for you?
      - DonHopkins 8y ago
        He dances for free: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t96m2ynKw0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t96m2ynKw0 I'd pay to watch him not sing! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sJUDx7iEJw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sJUDx7iEJw
        snaky 8y ago
        In my book the main part of the 'virtual gifts' experience is in 'for you'.
      - chii 8y ago
        i wouldn't want people to have to become entertainers online to get money in order to afford to write their OSS project!
- Crinus 8y ago
  > enough to pay 2 people full time at the center of the project Being able to only pay two people full time for a massive effort such as a full featured 3D game development system is a blatant commercial failure.
cwyers 8y ago
Depends on your market. If it's direct to consumer, you're basically in the same boat as shareware/freeware back in the day, and it's a model that _can_ work. If your market is businesses, then no. There is no budget for donations at most businesses. There is a budget for _buying_ things.
- krupan 8y ago
  This. This is exactly how Red Hat makes money with open source. They straight up sell it to businesses.
- marcosdumay 8y ago
  Even more. There is a budget for buying things even when there is a perfectly good free version that does everything the business needs. One just needs to add "support", or "customization" into the features. Those are not free for the seller, but business will gladly overpay.
- craydandy 8y ago
  It did work back in the day. Enough people had moral compass set in a way that they actually paid for software, even though paying was much more difficult then as it is today. However, I think times and people have changed. Not paying for shareware software wouldn't be problem for most people today. Most wouldn't even consider paying unless they could not use the software without paying for it.
eleclady 8y ago
There are so many smaller open source projects I would love to donate to but don't accept donations. I would even pay subscription to them if it ensures their continued development.
dec0dedab0de 8y ago
that is basically how the Free Software Foundation runs, and it predates open source.
ckuhl 8y ago
I have heard before (can't remember where) that a lot of companies won't donate to a project, but would gladly pay for "marketing" if the project simply listed companies that donated to them. I'm not sure if that would be a feasible option, but I can definitely see the difference in value propositions.
- r_smart 8y ago
  I wonder if this is because the people in companies currently using open source aren't people with control over the purse-strings. They're the people focused on getting a product out the door. The marketing department on the other hand, expects to have to pay to put the company name on things. So naturally, they'd be happy being listed as a partner, sponsor, patron, etc.
  - gnat 8y ago
    No, more a function of businesses having obligations not to waste their shareholders' money. By definition, donations are optional things. A donation be heavily questioned afterward if it is allowed to go through at all. But buying marketing, or support, is a perfectly sensible thing for a business to do.
    - r_smart 8y ago
      So what you're saying is, the people currently using the software don't have control over the purse strings?
      - PeterisP 8y ago
        No, the point is that for many companies noone, including the people with as much control over the purse strings as they can have, is allowed to simply donate money to something. It's not that you need permission from someone to do it, but that for even the top decisionmakers donations as such are not a legally permissible choice unless you can credibly justify it as not really a voluntary donation but buying something of value to the company e.g. marketing.
parthdesai 8y ago
>TurboTax replacements I know this is only for Canada and most likely for personal tax filing only, but simple tax is amazing. It's pay what you want and is developed by a team of 6 people. https://simpletax.ca https://simpletax.ca
- paulddraper 8y ago
  Not open-source, but there are free as in beer federal tax products in the U.S. I used to work at taxhawk.com (also owns freetaxusa.com). They make their money on premium support, amended filings, and state returns.
ma2rten 8y ago
It's that was GNU is?
ivalm 8y ago
I feel we have taste of this with wikimedia foundation. A lot of people complain that "They only use wikipedia, why would I donate to something that then funnels money to other projects." Which is of course a rather counterproductive view since for-profit companies routinely funnel money from profit-centers to new projects (and this results in NEW profit-centers/great projects, it's just some of them suck, which is fine).

Already__Taken 8y ago

Look at nuxt.js you get a funding update after you npm install it

est31 8y ago

Godot engine has this model. They are getting donations from patreon [1], enough to pay 2 people full time at the center of the project. Wikipedia is another project which is doing this very successfully. But in general, those methods bring you much less money than if you were proprietary, because as you rightfully point out, most people are "freeloaders". [1]: https://www.patreon.com/godotengine https://www.patreon.com/godotengine

Insanity 8y ago
to nitpick, but to me the term 'freeloaders' has a negative connotation and I don't think it should in the case of FOSS. Being able to use it for free is quite literally the point of FOSS. Apart from that, you make good points :)
- est31 8y ago
  You have a point. I've added " around it.
- bolzano 8y ago
  Do you mean free as in beer, or free as in speech here? I'm still honing my understanding of FOSS, and I'm not 100% sure that FOSS means free as in beer.
  - the_pwner224 8y ago
    > I'm not 100% sure that FOSS means free as in beer. It doesn't. The only requirements for licenses like GPL, etc. is that anyone who you distribute a binary to can ask you for the source code, and you must provide it for a reasonable fee (for GPL it's "for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source", and you must provide the source on request for as long as you offer support for the binary blob, with a minimum of three years). https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html Can't find it now, but I recall finding a link here (by the developer(s) of curl iirc) about how his BMW had a screen with the free software credits and BMW sent him a CD with the source when he requested it. Edit: couldn't find that BMW article, but here are a few interesting links related to that: https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2018/08/12/a-hundred-million-cars-run-curl/ https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2018/08/12/a-hundred-million-car... (multiple BMW screenshots in this page) https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2016/10/03/screenshotted-curl-credits/ https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2016/10/03/screenshotted-curl-cr...
    - dfox 8y ago
      The ability to somehow acquire the source is one of the requirements, but from the making money PoV it is not that significant. What is significant for this discussion is that another GPL requirement is that whoever you distribute software to is permitted to redistribute however they see fit.
  - dancek 8y ago
    Free software is about freedoms, but also tends to be available for free. Consider this: if I sold a piece of free software for $1000 and the buyer was free to share its source code, wouldn't they? Even if no actual user shared the code, a trader could buy the software and sell it onward for $500 to as many people as possible. The next trader would buy for $500 and sell copies for $100, etc. Now, the software might be difficult to build or run or use, and the vendor might be actually selling binaries, or the software as a service, or documentation, or consultation, etc. Those can be valid business models even if the source code is freely available. So theoretically, yes, free software could cost money. But its source code tends to be free as in beer, too. Freedom is much more valuable than the saved money, and that's why free beer gets scoffed at.
snaky 8y ago
Chinese livestreaming industry is based on donations, so-called 'virtual gifts', and top streamers can make $100,000 a month or more.
- YayamiOmate 8y ago
  That's more of an entertainment business, basically based on watching. Streamers are nothing else than sports arenas imho. or musicians. It's not so easy to get 10k people watch you code. I'd like to see it though.
  - snaky 8y ago
    It doesn't have to be restricted to livecoding. What about authors of the software you use answer to your questions? Well, to be creative, how much would you pay to watch Stallman dance for you?
    - DonHopkins 8y ago
      He dances for free: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t96m2ynKw0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t96m2ynKw0 I'd pay to watch him not sing! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sJUDx7iEJw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sJUDx7iEJw
      - snaky 8y ago
        In my book the main part of the 'virtual gifts' experience is in 'for you'.
    - chii 8y ago
      i wouldn't want people to have to become entertainers online to get money in order to afford to write their OSS project!
Crinus 8y ago
> enough to pay 2 people full time at the center of the project Being able to only pay two people full time for a massive effort such as a full featured 3D game development system is a blatant commercial failure.

cwyers 8y ago

Depends on your market. If it's direct to consumer, you're basically in the same boat as shareware/freeware back in the day, and it's a model that _can_ work. If your market is businesses, then no. There is no budget for donations at most businesses. There is a budget for _buying_ things.

krupan 8y ago
This. This is exactly how Red Hat makes money with open source. They straight up sell it to businesses.
marcosdumay 8y ago
Even more. There is a budget for buying things even when there is a perfectly good free version that does everything the business needs. One just needs to add "support", or "customization" into the features. Those are not free for the seller, but business will gladly overpay.
craydandy 8y ago
It did work back in the day. Enough people had moral compass set in a way that they actually paid for software, even though paying was much more difficult then as it is today. However, I think times and people have changed. Not paying for shareware software wouldn't be problem for most people today. Most wouldn't even consider paying unless they could not use the software without paying for it.

eleclady 8y ago

There are so many smaller open source projects I would love to donate to but don't accept donations. I would even pay subscription to them if it ensures their continued development.

dec0dedab0de 8y ago

that is basically how the Free Software Foundation runs, and it predates open source.

ckuhl 8y ago

I have heard before (can't remember where) that a lot of companies won't donate to a project, but would gladly pay for "marketing" if the project simply listed companies that donated to them. I'm not sure if that would be a feasible option, but I can definitely see the difference in value propositions.

r_smart 8y ago
I wonder if this is because the people in companies currently using open source aren't people with control over the purse-strings. They're the people focused on getting a product out the door. The marketing department on the other hand, expects to have to pay to put the company name on things. So naturally, they'd be happy being listed as a partner, sponsor, patron, etc.
- gnat 8y ago
  No, more a function of businesses having obligations not to waste their shareholders' money. By definition, donations are optional things. A donation be heavily questioned afterward if it is allowed to go through at all. But buying marketing, or support, is a perfectly sensible thing for a business to do.
  - r_smart 8y ago
    So what you're saying is, the people currently using the software don't have control over the purse strings?
    - PeterisP 8y ago
      No, the point is that for many companies noone, including the people with as much control over the purse strings as they can have, is allowed to simply donate money to something. It's not that you need permission from someone to do it, but that for even the top decisionmakers donations as such are not a legally permissible choice unless you can credibly justify it as not really a voluntary donation but buying something of value to the company e.g. marketing.

parthdesai 8y ago

>TurboTax replacements I know this is only for Canada and most likely for personal tax filing only, but simple tax is amazing. It's pay what you want and is developed by a team of 6 people. https://simpletax.ca https://simpletax.ca

paulddraper 8y ago
Not open-source, but there are free as in beer federal tax products in the U.S. I used to work at taxhawk.com (also owns freetaxusa.com). They make their money on premium support, amended filings, and state returns.

ma2rten 8y ago

It's that was GNU is?

ivalm 8y ago

I feel we have taste of this with wikimedia foundation. A lot of people complain that "They only use wikipedia, why would I donate to something that then funnels money to other projects." Which is of course a rather counterproductive view since for-profit companies routinely funnel money from profit-centers to new projects (and this results in NEW profit-centers/great projects, it's just some of them suck, which is fine).