4 ms·

Selling GPL software is objectively a terrible business model. If the entire proposition behind buying your software is "it'd be a pain to build this myself so

Selling GPL software is objectively a terrible business model. If the entire proposition behind buying your software is "it'd be a pain to build this myself so I'll pay someone to compile the binary then give it to me", the only thing I can infer is that you have an unnecessarily painful build process. Supporting GPL software, on the other hand, can be very viable. Another good option is licensing data to be interpreted/rendered/whatever by your GPL software. End of the day, people don't buy software. They buy solutions to business problems. If the business problem can be solved for free by building the FOSS software yourself, there's no reason to pay the creator. On the other hand, if the creator sells "I will solve X business problem for you, this is an example of some of the FOSS software I will use to do so, but in the event this software is unable to properly solve the problem I will take whatever steps are needed to ensure it is solved to your satisfaction", it makes darn good sense to pay that creator to solve that problem.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago
>Supporting GPL software, on the other hand, can be very viable. Yes but who here wants to work in support?
badsectoracula 5y ago
> Supporting GPL software, on the other hand, can be very viable On the other other hand, it means that there is a big incentive from the software's own developers to ensure that the software needs support.
dalke 5y ago
Your example proposition assumes the source code is available at no cost from the developer, which isn't necessarily the case. It's true that nearly all GPL'ed (and FOSS) software is available for download at no cost. But there's nothing in a FOSS license which requires a vendor to have a no-cost distribution mechanism. The "Selling Free Software" sales proposition is that you can pay to get the GPL'ed software directly from the developer, or find an existing customer willing to distribute it to you for free, or at a lower cost. The latter step may also require additional diligence as now you have two vendors in your supply chain. That said, it's still a terrible business model.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago

>Supporting GPL software, on the other hand, can be very viable. Yes but who here wants to work in support?

badsectoracula 5y ago

> Supporting GPL software, on the other hand, can be very viable On the other other hand, it means that there is a big incentive from the software's own developers to ensure that the software needs support.

dalke 5y ago

Your example proposition assumes the source code is available at no cost from the developer, which isn't necessarily the case. It's true that nearly all GPL'ed (and FOSS) software is available for download at no cost. But there's nothing in a FOSS license which requires a vendor to have a no-cost distribution mechanism. The "Selling Free Software" sales proposition is that you can pay to get the GPL'ed software directly from the developer, or find an existing customer willing to distribute it to you for free, or at a lower cost. The latter step may also require additional diligence as now you have two vendors in your supply chain. That said, it's still a terrible business model.