4 ms·

I would hate to see the future of open source go the way of the open core model. Open source has become a very popular way for startups to get traction and lead

I would hate to see the future of open source go the way of the open core model. Open source has become a very popular way for startups to get traction and lead gen, for their revenue generating, fully-featured, open-core version. I understand why this exists, and there's nothing wrong with it, but I'd love a Richard Stallman rant on the subject. I think it would be a good idea for open-core startups to grant options to EFF or the equivalent, at the beginning. I'd very much like to see the community directly benefit from the corporations that bootstrap themselves off of the communities back.

dimal 5y ago
I gotta admit, I like the open core model. When it's done right, it seems like a reasonable way to monetize while still getting development done and encouraging a community and ecosystem. I've been looking at how Ghost[0] set things up[1] and it seems to be working very well. The company is non-profit and has certain restrictions in place to ensure that they don't become evil. Still, it won't work for everything and it can't work for smaller libraries. [0] https://ghost.org/ https://ghost.org/ [1] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/johnonolan/ghost-just-a-blogging-platform https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/johnonolan/ghost-just-a...
- IshKebab 5y ago
  I agree. Open core is the least objectionable way to deal with the fact that properly developing most open source projects costs money. Obviously there are exceptions (Firefox, popular programming languages, etc.). I especially like that you can often put enterprisey features like LDAP integration and auditing into the "paid" bit which gives a nice way to encourage companies to pay without affecting hobbyists.
- relaunched 5y ago
  for me, nothing about open source is practical, reasonable or makes sense... and that's why it's magical. Software, as an industry may have evolved past that naive stage. It just kinda makes me a little sad.

dimal 5y ago

I gotta admit, I like the open core model. When it's done right, it seems like a reasonable way to monetize while still getting development done and encouraging a community and ecosystem. I've been looking at how Ghost[0] set things up[1] and it seems to be working very well. The company is non-profit and has certain restrictions in place to ensure that they don't become evil. Still, it won't work for everything and it can't work for smaller libraries. [0] https://ghost.org/ https://ghost.org/ [1] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/johnonolan/ghost-just-a-blogging-platform https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/johnonolan/ghost-just-a...

IshKebab 5y ago
I agree. Open core is the least objectionable way to deal with the fact that properly developing most open source projects costs money. Obviously there are exceptions (Firefox, popular programming languages, etc.). I especially like that you can often put enterprisey features like LDAP integration and auditing into the "paid" bit which gives a nice way to encourage companies to pay without affecting hobbyists.
relaunched 5y ago
for me, nothing about open source is practical, reasonable or makes sense... and that's why it's magical. Software, as an industry may have evolved past that naive stage. It just kinda makes me a little sad.