6 ms·

> Think Twice Before Open-Sourcing This is the sad truth about open source software - if you have a good product, giving others access to the core software oft

> Think Twice Before Open-Sourcing This is the sad truth about open source software - if you have a good product, giving others access to the core software often means you can develop a community that will help you develop and create a company around it. But a large company will often be able to produce a more commercially version - cheaper, better support, wider availability, integration with other services etc.

echelon 5y ago
I'm starting to think "source available" or extreme AGPL is the only way to compete with the likes of the famgopolies. If you open source, anyone can use your code. In the previous world this was good. In the new monopoly world, the giants clone your product, make it a paid feature, and outcompete you. You'll be out of business with nothing to show for it. Famgopolies shouldn't be allowed to access open source unless they open source their entire stack.
- dilyevsky 5y ago
  You can probably dual license as agpl for faang and mit-style for everybody else.
- bserge 5y ago
  I think giants can clone your product even without the source code.
  - janto 5y ago
    They can go through the dev process and take on those risks themselves. Don't copy homework and present yourself as the expert.
  - raesene9 5y ago
    Technically I'm sure that's true, but the number of acquisitions of small software startups the giants make for large amounts of money suggest that they don't view the process of cloning a product as easy.
    - Sebb767 5y ago
      Cloning a product requires you to clone the API bug-for-bug an locks you in architecture-wise quite a bit, since your interface must be similar. This requires you to solve problems the same way the original software did, but doing so similarily well might not be easy. Also, this takes time. Then, once you cloned the software, you still need to convince the customer base to switch. It's far easier to simply write a check and get code, talent and customers at once without delay.
- spockz 5y ago
  I think InfluxDB has a license that prevents anyone from offering influxdb as a saas on their platform. You can deliver it part of a product but it cannot just be influxdb.
- rkachowski 5y ago
  Searching google for the definition of "famgopoly" leads back to your previous HN comments on various aggregators, and nothing else. I like that you're single handedly trying to make this word happen against the crushing weight of social inertia and multibillion PR departments. It feels very appropriate for the topic.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    Have you been able to piece together a definition for the word? I've yet to be able to tell from context what it means (it's a portmanteau of "monopoly" and "FAANG" I think? But is it supposed to mean all of those companies, individually, are operating as monopolies and should be broken up, or that those companies collectively form a cartel and should be banned from operating as such, or some third meaning I have yet to identify?)
p1necone 5y ago
No, the mistake is trying to make money from open source in the first place. That's. Not. The. Point. Paying for developers to work on some open source project that you rely on, absolutely, great idea. But trying to monetize an open source project itself is myopic - obviously the solution if you want to do that is to make the project not open source as you say. This isn't a problem with open source software, it's a feature and it's part of why it's so ubiquitous - no one company pulling the reigns who can fuck it up.
- helsinkiandrew 5y ago
  > No, the mistake is trying to make money from open source in the first place. That's. Not. The. Point. But the point is people are trying to make a living using their software development skills, not specifically make money from open source. As part of that the question is should they release their code as open source or keep it closed.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  Unless we are talking about hippie farms, money has to come from somewhere.
  - math-dev 5y ago
    Get a job then. Open Source is for people who want to have their cake (be their own employer / business owner) and eat it too (not actively compete in the market, just ask people to pay for their work since they are doing a service to the community). Then they shouldn’t get shocked when it works against them. If you are releasing open source (especially under permissive licenses) you are relinquishing your rights - so do it from a view that its charity to the world, but don’t expect to get all the compliments for doing OSS work but also _expect_ market rates for the work you did. No one agreed to pay you for it, no one agreed to pay you royalties for using your product in theirs and so forth.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      I have a very nice one doing enterprise consulting, and for what I care we could be back at PD and Shareware, which is what killing GPL will do anyway.
kungito 5y ago
The thing is, if these big corps wanted they could just re-implement the whole product with the same API so it doesn't matter if your product is open source or closed source. The only thing that matters is if they find it worth the hassle.

echelon 5y ago

I'm starting to think "source available" or extreme AGPL is the only way to compete with the likes of the famgopolies. If you open source, anyone can use your code. In the previous world this was good. In the new monopoly world, the giants clone your product, make it a paid feature, and outcompete you. You'll be out of business with nothing to show for it. Famgopolies shouldn't be allowed to access open source unless they open source their entire stack.

dilyevsky 5y ago
You can probably dual license as agpl for faang and mit-style for everybody else.
bserge 5y ago
I think giants can clone your product even without the source code.
- janto 5y ago
  They can go through the dev process and take on those risks themselves. Don't copy homework and present yourself as the expert.
- raesene9 5y ago
  Technically I'm sure that's true, but the number of acquisitions of small software startups the giants make for large amounts of money suggest that they don't view the process of cloning a product as easy.
  - Sebb767 5y ago
    Cloning a product requires you to clone the API bug-for-bug an locks you in architecture-wise quite a bit, since your interface must be similar. This requires you to solve problems the same way the original software did, but doing so similarily well might not be easy. Also, this takes time. Then, once you cloned the software, you still need to convince the customer base to switch. It's far easier to simply write a check and get code, talent and customers at once without delay.
spockz 5y ago
I think InfluxDB has a license that prevents anyone from offering influxdb as a saas on their platform. You can deliver it part of a product but it cannot just be influxdb.
rkachowski 5y ago
Searching google for the definition of "famgopoly" leads back to your previous HN comments on various aggregators, and nothing else. I like that you're single handedly trying to make this word happen against the crushing weight of social inertia and multibillion PR departments. It feels very appropriate for the topic.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Have you been able to piece together a definition for the word? I've yet to be able to tell from context what it means (it's a portmanteau of "monopoly" and "FAANG" I think? But is it supposed to mean all of those companies, individually, are operating as monopolies and should be broken up, or that those companies collectively form a cartel and should be banned from operating as such, or some third meaning I have yet to identify?)

p1necone 5y ago

No, the mistake is trying to make money from open source in the first place. That's. Not. The. Point. Paying for developers to work on some open source project that you rely on, absolutely, great idea. But trying to monetize an open source project itself is myopic - obviously the solution if you want to do that is to make the project not open source as you say. This isn't a problem with open source software, it's a feature and it's part of why it's so ubiquitous - no one company pulling the reigns who can fuck it up.

helsinkiandrew 5y ago
> No, the mistake is trying to make money from open source in the first place. That's. Not. The. Point. But the point is people are trying to make a living using their software development skills, not specifically make money from open source. As part of that the question is should they release their code as open source or keep it closed.
pjmlp 5y ago
Unless we are talking about hippie farms, money has to come from somewhere.
- math-dev 5y ago
  Get a job then. Open Source is for people who want to have their cake (be their own employer / business owner) and eat it too (not actively compete in the market, just ask people to pay for their work since they are doing a service to the community). Then they shouldn’t get shocked when it works against them. If you are releasing open source (especially under permissive licenses) you are relinquishing your rights - so do it from a view that its charity to the world, but don’t expect to get all the compliments for doing OSS work but also _expect_ market rates for the work you did. No one agreed to pay you for it, no one agreed to pay you royalties for using your product in theirs and so forth.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    I have a very nice one doing enterprise consulting, and for what I care we could be back at PD and Shareware, which is what killing GPL will do anyway.

kungito 5y ago

The thing is, if these big corps wanted they could just re-implement the whole product with the same API so it doesn't matter if your product is open source or closed source. The only thing that matters is if they find it worth the hassle.