4 ms·

The model I use for some for-profit things I do: People who pay are your customers. Everyone else is free advertising / marketing / product or service testing

The model I use for some for-profit things I do: People who pay are your customers. Everyone else is free advertising / marketing / product or service testing / feedback group. Note that "who pay" doesn't necessarily include "those who might pay" but can include "those who would pay". The ones wanting your site open source more likely fall into the "might pay" group. I've used a plugin architecture to test the resolve of "might pay" vs "would pay" groups. By exposing APIs for at least import/export I removed the downside of "data held hostage". "Might pay" also frequently turns out to be "won't pay" most of the time. I wouldn't recommend you open source your site unless you see a lot of potential for open source contribution or where review[1] is expected. I would suggest considering some sort of plugin or API for users. This is a good enough bridge for most people. Especially business to business linkages or even b2c. [1] crypto is an example where review is worthwhile.

SunghoYahng 7y ago
Thank you for your case. I'm still wondering what is the ground for people who want open source to fall into 'might pay' group. I would like if you explain that part more.
- rs23296008n1 7y ago
  "Might pay" means no actual guarantee they will turn into a customer. They are a risk you need to investigate. You'll need to dig into actually why open source is a factor for them and what it really means. Are they just wanting open source as a gimmick or are they really wanting to contribute? Is there an actual benefit to you? That benefit needs to outway the cost since you would be bankrolling development. A lot of people mistake open source as some form of insurance. It can be but having the source doesn't mean you can just fork it. Especially when the original tree is under constant development. Bitrot can occur when you don't track from mainline particular features that are seen as essential. Bitrot also occurs when the codebase doesn't change fast enough to match its surrounding ecosystem. If you're running a site and you open source you definitely need to make sure your core benefit transcends that source code. Your staff, your experience etc. Otherwise you are setting yourself up for basic competition from others using your technology. None of this stops open source being useful or a good idea in general. Just make sure there's an actual benefit and you know exactly what that is and what it implies. As mentioned before, I've had customers want the entire product open source but on further inspection I discovered they really just wanted the ability to take their data out. They really wanted interoperability.

SunghoYahng 7y ago

Thank you for your case. I'm still wondering what is the ground for people who want open source to fall into 'might pay' group. I would like if you explain that part more.

rs23296008n1 7y ago
"Might pay" means no actual guarantee they will turn into a customer. They are a risk you need to investigate. You'll need to dig into actually why open source is a factor for them and what it really means. Are they just wanting open source as a gimmick or are they really wanting to contribute? Is there an actual benefit to you? That benefit needs to outway the cost since you would be bankrolling development. A lot of people mistake open source as some form of insurance. It can be but having the source doesn't mean you can just fork it. Especially when the original tree is under constant development. Bitrot can occur when you don't track from mainline particular features that are seen as essential. Bitrot also occurs when the codebase doesn't change fast enough to match its surrounding ecosystem. If you're running a site and you open source you definitely need to make sure your core benefit transcends that source code. Your staff, your experience etc. Otherwise you are setting yourself up for basic competition from others using your technology. None of this stops open source being useful or a good idea in general. Just make sure there's an actual benefit and you know exactly what that is and what it implies. As mentioned before, I've had customers want the entire product open source but on further inspection I discovered they really just wanted the ability to take their data out. They really wanted interoperability.