4 ms·

I've come to view use of AGPL as an admission of failure or proof of lack of understanding of how to build a business around open source software. While AGPL is

I've come to view use of AGPL as an admission of failure or proof of lack of understanding of how to build a business around open source software. While AGPL is sold as a means for protecting against abuse of a party's good-faith open source work, it defacto signals a transition to a bait-and-switch business model. Most large companies do open source to commoditize the cost of non-differentiating software. How you create value over and above what large companies are already willing to do in such an ecosystem is tough, and few have been able to build as non-services-based value prop. Open source software contributions, be it directly through lead maintainership or indirectly through contributions to 3rd party projects, are best viewed as marketing. You have to have something else to sell.

mwcampbell 6y ago
Selling proprietary licenses to companies that want to go proprietary with your software is a perfectly valid business model. It also helps to set up well-aligned incentives for actually producing good software. Consider this comment by open-source licensing expert Kyle Mitchell [1]: > The value of software lies overwhelmingly in the software. Charging for anything else perverts incentives. Charging for features? Make it hard to add features. Charging for configuration? Make it hard to configure. Charging for training or documentation? Make it hard to understand. Charging for hosting? Make it hard to host, monitor, tune, &c. Not charging at all? Slurp up personal data on users, and charge for that. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23967773 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23967773
- kyaghmour 6y ago
  I won't claim any expert status, but I've butted heads with RMS and Eben Moglen a few times. Have a look at Matt Asay's OSCON 2016 presentation "Lessons learned from 15+ years in open source", he breaks it down fairly well: https://www.slideshare.net/mjasay/oscon-2016-lessons-learned-from-15-years-in-open-source-matt-asay https://www.slideshare.net/mjasay/oscon-2016-lessons-learned...

mwcampbell 6y ago

Selling proprietary licenses to companies that want to go proprietary with your software is a perfectly valid business model. It also helps to set up well-aligned incentives for actually producing good software. Consider this comment by open-source licensing expert Kyle Mitchell [1]: > The value of software lies overwhelmingly in the software. Charging for anything else perverts incentives. Charging for features? Make it hard to add features. Charging for configuration? Make it hard to configure. Charging for training or documentation? Make it hard to understand. Charging for hosting? Make it hard to host, monitor, tune, &c. Not charging at all? Slurp up personal data on users, and charge for that. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23967773 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23967773

kyaghmour 6y ago
I won't claim any expert status, but I've butted heads with RMS and Eben Moglen a few times. Have a look at Matt Asay's OSCON 2016 presentation "Lessons learned from 15+ years in open source", he breaks it down fairly well: https://www.slideshare.net/mjasay/oscon-2016-lessons-learned-from-15-years-in-open-source-matt-asay https://www.slideshare.net/mjasay/oscon-2016-lessons-learned...