4 ms·

Please note that we are discussing in the context of a machine-learning _library_. I didn't repeat that in every sentence, but it's worth remembering. If you h

by jwr 16y ago

Please note that we are discussing in the context of a machine-learning _library_. I didn't repeat that in every sentence, but it's worth remembering. If you have a startup that uses software that requires machine learning libraries, chances are your business model doesn't just involve living off consulting fees and professional services.

mindcrime 16y ago
Please note that we are discussing in the context of a machine-learning _library_. I didn't repeat that in every sentence, but it's worth remembering. Yep, I'm aware. If you have a startup that uses software that requires machine learning libraries, chances are your business model doesn't just involve living off consulting fees and professional services. You do realize that you can sell GPL'd software, right? Just because you are GPL, doesn't restrict you to just consulting fees and services. FWIW, the software I'm working on for my startup, does (or will) involve a healthy dose of machine learning libraries, and I wouldn't necessarily rule out using a GPL'd library. Right now I'm sticking to mostly Apache Licensed stuff, but - then again - I'm also releasing my stuff under the APLv2.
- mbreese 16y ago
  You do realize that you can sell GPL'd software, right Yes, and there's nothing preventing your client from reselling it to other potential clients. So realistically, you can really only count on consulting fees and services.
  - mindcrime 16y ago
    Yes, and there's nothing preventing your client from reselling it to other potential clients. Other than the fact that they're probably not in that business. If I sell, say, a GPL'd CRM system to a Widget manufacturing company, why would they go out and start trying to sell CRM systems just because they can? Same reason all of Red Hat's customers don't get into the "selling Linux" business. It's just not what they do. Red Hat, BTW, make a decent bit of coin selling a product that's largely made up of GPL'd code.
    - riffraff 16y ago
      but another company in the same space can get to your code and run with it, isn't that how mandrake and suse came into being?
      - mindcrime 16y ago
        but another company in the same space can get to your code and run with it, isn't that how mandrake and suse came into being? Sure, and Oracle also took Red Hat's code and created a competing offering. Selling open-source is definitely different, in some regards, than selling closed-source proprietary stuff. But RH (and a few others) demonstrate that it is possible to make money selling open-source software (Ok, I'll argue that it's not actually the software you're selling, but something else.... but still, you're selling something, not just doing professional services).

by jwr 16y ago

mindcrime 16y ago

Please note that we are discussing in the context of a machine-learning _library_. I didn't repeat that in every sentence, but it's worth remembering. Yep, I'm aware. If you have a startup that uses software that requires machine learning libraries, chances are your business model doesn't just involve living off consulting fees and professional services. You do realize that you can sell GPL'd software, right? Just because you are GPL, doesn't restrict you to just consulting fees and services. FWIW, the software I'm working on for my startup, does (or will) involve a healthy dose of machine learning libraries, and I wouldn't necessarily rule out using a GPL'd library. Right now I'm sticking to mostly Apache Licensed stuff, but - then again - I'm also releasing my stuff under the APLv2.

mbreese 16y ago
You do realize that you can sell GPL'd software, right Yes, and there's nothing preventing your client from reselling it to other potential clients. So realistically, you can really only count on consulting fees and services.
- mindcrime 16y ago
  Yes, and there's nothing preventing your client from reselling it to other potential clients. Other than the fact that they're probably not in that business. If I sell, say, a GPL'd CRM system to a Widget manufacturing company, why would they go out and start trying to sell CRM systems just because they can? Same reason all of Red Hat's customers don't get into the "selling Linux" business. It's just not what they do. Red Hat, BTW, make a decent bit of coin selling a product that's largely made up of GPL'd code.
  - riffraff 16y ago
    but another company in the same space can get to your code and run with it, isn't that how mandrake and suse came into being?
    - mindcrime 16y ago
      but another company in the same space can get to your code and run with it, isn't that how mandrake and suse came into being? Sure, and Oracle also took Red Hat's code and created a competing offering. Selling open-source is definitely different, in some regards, than selling closed-source proprietary stuff. But RH (and a few others) demonstrate that it is possible to make money selling open-source software (Ok, I'll argue that it's not actually the software you're selling, but something else.... but still, you're selling something, not just doing professional services).