4 ms·

One method this article doesn't mention is a "sell the binaries" model, usually combined with some level of support (consumer software) or a support contract (m

One method this article doesn't mention is a "sell the binaries" model, usually combined with some level of support (consumer software) or a support contract (more complex/enterprise things). This model personally appeals to me. For example, I believe the Ardour DAW uses this model. But more importantly it's basically the business model of Redhat, which is presumably the most successful FOSS company there is. Another option is to combine the "sell the binaries" model with a trademark model, where only the official binaries can bear the name of the project. Third parties can offer their own binaries but just have to change the name. Again this is also obviously part of Redhat's strategy (and for the off-label versions, see CentOS, etc.) Another option is a variant on selling support contracts, but specifically about maintaining old versions of your software you maybe wouldn't ideally want to support anymore; it is possible to sell private maintained branches of older versions which are out of public support. However the viability of this depends on having some old versions, and depends on how often you break compatibility, which is after all what creates demand for the older branches. The "premium version"/"open core" option mentioned in the article has some serious downsides. The most obvious is that you create a systemic incentive to handicap the FOSS project. You end up competing with your own project, so you have to ensure the FOSS project doesn't become as good as your premium version. Imagine if feature X is implemented in the premium version only. Now an external contributor writes an independent implementation of feature X and raises a PR with the FOSS project. Is it going to get merged? Probably not. The conflict of interest compromises the operation of the FOSS project. Essentially, you create something that undermines the ability for the project to be as good as it can be. You create a situation where the organisation's stewardship of the FOSS project is detrimental to its potential. (Pertinently, today nginx just announced they're going to ease off on at least some of this...) [1] Fundamentally open core isn't a very satisfying answer to the question of "How do you make an income from FOSS?" because it is basically the answer "Make some software which isn't FOSS." It's not a true answer to the question. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32572153 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32572153

candiddevmike 4y ago
A non commercial, no distribution source available license can work. Users can build it/hack around locally, and make changes/pull requests. Maintainers are the only ones who can monetize it. Throw in a clause that if the community makes more than 50% of the code changes it will be converted to FOSS (prevent maintainer neglect).
- hlandau 4y ago
  This is by definition not FOSS.
  - candiddevmike 4y ago
    I never called it a FOSS license, it's IMO a good balance of end user and maintainer rights.
    - teddyh 4y ago
      You implicitly did call it a FOSS licence, since the topic specifically is “How to pay your rent with your open source project”.
      - wongarsu 4y ago
        The term FOSS (Free and open-source software) itself implies that there are things that are open-source but not FOSS. Calling it source-available is smarter to avoid the whole "what counts as open source" topic, but that's what he did call it.
        eesmith 4y ago
        No, it doesn't. "FOSS" (and "FLOSS", which the FSF prefers) is used as an encompassing term for the two main political camps of "free/libre software" and "open source software". It's meant to express a neutral position about the underlying politics. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software or Stallman's essays at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... ("The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same range of programs.") and https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html ("A researcher studying practices and methods used by developers in the free software community decided that these questions were independent of the developers' political views, so he used the term “FLOSS,” ... Others use the term “FOSS,”. To be clear, there are a small number of licenses which the Open Source Initiative say are open source where the FSF says are not free software (eg, the NASA Open Source Agreement v1.3.) But that's not why people use the term FOSS.
Cthulhu_ 4y ago
For definite; if it's software aimed at developers it doesn't matter very much, but otherwise you should definitely sell premade binaries for all platforms on your website. Then you can also include auto-updaters and the like. Bonus points if you can sell a subscription model as well, either product features like cloud storage / sync (depending on the application of course) or consultancy (for e.g. libraries, frameworks). I'm currently working with Nativescript, they have some people working on it whose business model is paid consultancy (we have one guy for 8 hours / week for example). It's used by big enterprises like banks, they will have plenty of money for professional developer support.
andai 4y ago
Aseprite uses the sell the binaries model. It's open source but you have to compile it yourself (and it has many dependencies). I've tried getting things to compile before and I consider it about as appealing as a visit to the dentist (only longer and more painful!) so I just forked over the cash.
- pabs3 4y ago
  Asesprite is is shared source, not open source. https://dev.aseprite.org/2016/09/01/new-source-code-license/ https://dev.aseprite.org/2016/09/01/new-source-code-license/ https://bugs.debian.org/864990 https://bugs.debian.org/864990 https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite/blob/main/EULA.txt https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite/blob/main/EULA.txt https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- austinjp 4y ago
  Interesting. A sort of "sell convenience" model. I'm a bit out of this loop, but isn't this how several SaaS/PaaS operators work? Provide open-source software but offer paid-for solutions such as hosting and/or support?
- _fjb4 4y ago
  As stated by another user it's not true open source, the source is solely available for personal use and for the submission of patches back to the author. Such a model can backfire though as it would appear to be legal for a third-party contributor to create a set of scripts that would compile and prepare the application (load all the dependencies in a container and so forth) and release those scripts. Those scripts could even become accepted by a Linux distro's package manager, similar to how package managers package freeware prop software by using a script to legally grab the binary from the developer's site and installing it.
- jtsiskin 4y ago
  What I dislike about this model is it incentivizes insane and complicated build processes. You’re incentives not to make a simple docker image
- fomine3 4y ago
hlandau 4y ago
I forgot to mention one more model which is kind of specific to games: open the engine/code, sell the assets (levels, etc.) which remain proprietary. This is an interesting compromise which seems to only be really available for games. Probably the most famous example of this approach is John Carmack's engines. (Of course, some games also get to enjoy this approach "against their will", namely when people like the game so much that someone reimplements the engine from scratch (see ScummVM)). Keeping assets proprietary doesn't really feel like a problem, since how do you open source art in the first place? Much art isn't really meaningfully modifiable after it's done, unlike source code. A .psd might have layers when a .png doesn't, but the difference isn't enormous. Art doesn't really have "bugs".
knolan 4y ago
A few blender add-ons do this. The FLIP fluids one for example. They seem to keep the source a version behind too. Seems to work well too as they are producing solid updates for the tool.

candiddevmike 4y ago

A non commercial, no distribution source available license can work. Users can build it/hack around locally, and make changes/pull requests. Maintainers are the only ones who can monetize it. Throw in a clause that if the community makes more than 50% of the code changes it will be converted to FOSS (prevent maintainer neglect).

hlandau 4y ago
This is by definition not FOSS.
- candiddevmike 4y ago
  I never called it a FOSS license, it's IMO a good balance of end user and maintainer rights.
  - teddyh 4y ago
    You implicitly did call it a FOSS licence, since the topic specifically is “How to pay your rent with your open source project”.
    - wongarsu 4y ago
      The term FOSS (Free and open-source software) itself implies that there are things that are open-source but not FOSS. Calling it source-available is smarter to avoid the whole "what counts as open source" topic, but that's what he did call it.
      - eesmith 4y ago
        No, it doesn't. "FOSS" (and "FLOSS", which the FSF prefers) is used as an encompassing term for the two main political camps of "free/libre software" and "open source software". It's meant to express a neutral position about the underlying politics. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software or Stallman's essays at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... ("The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same range of programs.") and https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html ("A researcher studying practices and methods used by developers in the free software community decided that these questions were independent of the developers' political views, so he used the term “FLOSS,” ... Others use the term “FOSS,”. To be clear, there are a small number of licenses which the Open Source Initiative say are open source where the FSF says are not free software (eg, the NASA Open Source Agreement v1.3.) But that's not why people use the term FOSS.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago

For definite; if it's software aimed at developers it doesn't matter very much, but otherwise you should definitely sell premade binaries for all platforms on your website. Then you can also include auto-updaters and the like. Bonus points if you can sell a subscription model as well, either product features like cloud storage / sync (depending on the application of course) or consultancy (for e.g. libraries, frameworks). I'm currently working with Nativescript, they have some people working on it whose business model is paid consultancy (we have one guy for 8 hours / week for example). It's used by big enterprises like banks, they will have plenty of money for professional developer support.

andai 4y ago

Aseprite uses the sell the binaries model. It's open source but you have to compile it yourself (and it has many dependencies). I've tried getting things to compile before and I consider it about as appealing as a visit to the dentist (only longer and more painful!) so I just forked over the cash.

pabs3 4y ago
Asesprite is is shared source, not open source. https://dev.aseprite.org/2016/09/01/new-source-code-license/ https://dev.aseprite.org/2016/09/01/new-source-code-license/ https://bugs.debian.org/864990 https://bugs.debian.org/864990 https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite/blob/main/EULA.txt https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite/blob/main/EULA.txt https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
austinjp 4y ago
Interesting. A sort of "sell convenience" model. I'm a bit out of this loop, but isn't this how several SaaS/PaaS operators work? Provide open-source software but offer paid-for solutions such as hosting and/or support?
_fjb4 4y ago
As stated by another user it's not true open source, the source is solely available for personal use and for the submission of patches back to the author. Such a model can backfire though as it would appear to be legal for a third-party contributor to create a set of scripts that would compile and prepare the application (load all the dependencies in a container and so forth) and release those scripts. Those scripts could even become accepted by a Linux distro's package manager, similar to how package managers package freeware prop software by using a script to legally grab the binary from the developer's site and installing it.
jtsiskin 4y ago
What I dislike about this model is it incentivizes insane and complicated build processes. You’re incentives not to make a simple docker image
fomine3 4y ago

hlandau 4y ago

I forgot to mention one more model which is kind of specific to games: open the engine/code, sell the assets (levels, etc.) which remain proprietary. This is an interesting compromise which seems to only be really available for games. Probably the most famous example of this approach is John Carmack's engines. (Of course, some games also get to enjoy this approach "against their will", namely when people like the game so much that someone reimplements the engine from scratch (see ScummVM)). Keeping assets proprietary doesn't really feel like a problem, since how do you open source art in the first place? Much art isn't really meaningfully modifiable after it's done, unlike source code. A .psd might have layers when a .png doesn't, but the difference isn't enormous. Art doesn't really have "bugs".

knolan 4y ago

A few blender add-ons do this. The FLIP fluids one for example. They seem to keep the source a version behind too. Seems to work well too as they are producing solid updates for the tool.