2 ms·

> Open Source maintainers graduating to sophisticated counterparties who send invoices for "support and sponsorship" on letterhead, and big companies developing

by dalke 5y ago

> Open Source maintainers graduating to sophisticated counterparties who send invoices for "support and sponsorship" on letterhead, and big companies developing procedures to assess, approve, and pay them as a matter of routine so that they can get what they need from the ecosystem. The first 1/2 already exists. It's the companies which need to change. I say this from experience. I'm self-employed, with my own company. For the first 15 years my plan was to provide commercial support for open source packages I worked on. I had an LLC, an accountant, I paid a designer for a logo, etc. I co-founded the Biopython project and offered commercial support for it, with a couple of other Biopython developers under NDA so we could work on commercial projects that used Biopython. Any interest? No. I started an open source package for high-performance molecular similarity search. This got some funding, mostly from personal contacts at companies which wanted new features. And people used it. In fact, at one conference a speaker gave a talk based in part on the results of my software. He commented correctly that it's very hard for a company to spend money on software they get for free. I commented, correctly IMO, that I offered support contracts, and support is easy to justify to management if they really cared. (Over the course of the conference, I learned what they liked best of "free software" was it is 1) available for no cost, and 2) doesn't come with string attached - they didn't want to care about upstream.) My story isn't unique. I'm not the only one to try the "sophisticated counterparty" route. LLCs are cheap. The real onus is on the big companies. And since that's not going to happen, I now offer proprietary licensing for my once FOSS-only software.

mbrodersen 5y ago
If you offer your work with a price tag of $0 then people/companies will pay $0 for it. The nativity of open source developers thinking otherwise is jaw dropping. So yes I agree that commercial licensing is the way to go.
- dalke 5y ago
  Your view of the "nativity of open source developers" is itself naïve. To my understanding, most people who want to get paid a reasonable amount to develop FOSS go one of two routes. 1) Service-oriented, à la the Cygnus Solutions (now Red Hat) approach. FOSS developers get paid to fix bugs, add features, answer questions, and provide training. This has been my approach. 2) Employer cost savings. Work as an employee for a company which saves money by developing software, but where the employer is not interested in bringing it to market. See the section "Professionalizing the role of maintainer" of the linked-to essay for other examples of what a company might get through funding a FOSS project. ("security practices, like two-factor authentication and mandatory code review", etc.) None of this is "work with a price tag of $0", and the very essay we're talking about gives counter-examples to your interpretation. Furthermore, I tried selling FOSS software for a fee ($30K, not $0), and simple commercial licensing doesn't work either. Commercial proprietary licensing addressed certain economic problems that commercial FOSS licensing didn't resolve.
  - mbrodersen 5y ago
    I think you are slightly misunderstanding my point. I love OSS. I am a big fan. What I am not a fan of is maintainers giving their work away for $0 and then complaining that nobody pays them $ for their work. That is what I call naive. It shows a complete lack of understanding of how humans and markets work. If you want to be paid $ for your OSS work then make it part of the license and sue companies that doesn't pay. Or (as you say yourself) sell it as a service. Or perhaps an entrepreneur will start a business that specialize in enforcing OSS payments as a service to OSS developers (taking a % fee in return).
    - dalke 5y ago
      And what I am complaining about is that NOTHING in my comment had anything do with "giving their work away for $0 and then complaining that nobody pays them $ for their work." Moreover, the linked-to essay even called out services which companies COULD pay for.

by dalke 5y ago

mbrodersen 5y ago

If you offer your work with a price tag of $0 then people/companies will pay $0 for it. The nativity of open source developers thinking otherwise is jaw dropping. So yes I agree that commercial licensing is the way to go.

dalke 5y ago
Your view of the "nativity of open source developers" is itself naïve. To my understanding, most people who want to get paid a reasonable amount to develop FOSS go one of two routes. 1) Service-oriented, à la the Cygnus Solutions (now Red Hat) approach. FOSS developers get paid to fix bugs, add features, answer questions, and provide training. This has been my approach. 2) Employer cost savings. Work as an employee for a company which saves money by developing software, but where the employer is not interested in bringing it to market. See the section "Professionalizing the role of maintainer" of the linked-to essay for other examples of what a company might get through funding a FOSS project. ("security practices, like two-factor authentication and mandatory code review", etc.) None of this is "work with a price tag of $0", and the very essay we're talking about gives counter-examples to your interpretation. Furthermore, I tried selling FOSS software for a fee ($30K, not $0), and simple commercial licensing doesn't work either. Commercial proprietary licensing addressed certain economic problems that commercial FOSS licensing didn't resolve.
- mbrodersen 5y ago
  I think you are slightly misunderstanding my point. I love OSS. I am a big fan. What I am not a fan of is maintainers giving their work away for $0 and then complaining that nobody pays them $ for their work. That is what I call naive. It shows a complete lack of understanding of how humans and markets work. If you want to be paid $ for your OSS work then make it part of the license and sue companies that doesn't pay. Or (as you say yourself) sell it as a service. Or perhaps an entrepreneur will start a business that specialize in enforcing OSS payments as a service to OSS developers (taking a % fee in return).
  - dalke 5y ago
    And what I am complaining about is that NOTHING in my comment had anything do with "giving their work away for $0 and then complaining that nobody pays them $ for their work." Moreover, the linked-to essay even called out services which companies COULD pay for.