4 ms·

I've been thinking about this problem a lot, since I'm trying to figure out how to sustain our open source project. Our project is complex enough that it requir

by kgodey 4y ago

I've been thinking about this problem a lot, since I'm trying to figure out how to sustain our open source project. Our project is complex enough that it requires a few full-time people to maintain it. Our current funding comes from a grant, which is not sustainable in the long term. I'm philosophically opposed to open core because tying revenue to proprietary features seems like the wrong incentive structure, I can't imagine how you'd avoid conflicts of interest. Plus, I'm building open source software because I believe in user freedom, so proprietary features leave an icky taste in my mouth. My theory so far is that the open core model makes sense for VC-backed companies that are targeting enterprise customers. Most open core products seem targeted at enterprises, not small businesses or individuals. I assume this is because only enterprise deals can make the amount of money that VCs expect from investment. Of course, this leads to enterprise features being prioritized, which sucks for smaller organizations or people using the software. I'd like my project to focus on meeting the needs of everyday people. I think we need more consumer focused open source software that is so well designed that it will displace proprietary SaaS software, where the incentive is to provide a service that customers get locked into. Software should be a tool, not a service. The only project that I can think of doing a great job here is WordPress. WordPress is very easy to use, Automattic builds it, but they are not the only ones to make money from it, and I think the incentives are well-aligned. I'm hoping I can find a similar funding model where I can build a sustainable project for everyday users without going after the enterprise market and all the sacrifices that entails. We are a non profit now and that keeps our incentives aligned with users.

throw_human 4y ago
The best I've been able to come up is that freedom 0 applies only to humans. If a non-human entity is running the software, viz. some sort of corporation, then it is not allowed to without a (expensive) license. I want to make the world better for people, not for Amazon.
- sneak 4y ago
  Corporations don't exist. Amazon is made of people: shareholders and staff. Software doesn't run itself and corporations don't run software: human beings do. There's no such thing as a non-human entity running software.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mattigames 4y ago
    From his/her wording I assume they mean some unspecified threshold before a group of people is considered a corporation. From my limited understanding I think it could be useful to have a license that is only for free for organizations made of (for example) 10 people or less.
    - throw_human 4y ago
      The license is only granted to natural born persons. The only people who don't grasp this simple fact are the ones who have never worked in a corporation. They very much own and run things legally. Which is why when the liquidation man comes a knocking you don't lose your shirt for owning stock in Enron.
      - yuhaa98 4y ago
        Now let's say somebody in a corp uses the software for some minor task. Are they allowed? Is it the person or the corp "using" it? If the latter, let's say me and my buddy both use the software individually, legally. We sit in the same room. Ok? We are together working on some non-profit project not involving the software. Ok? Now we use the software for it. Ok? Niw we make a profit. Ok? Where do you draw the line? RMS would be pretty opposed to these ideas.
        throw_human 4y ago
        > Now let's say somebody in a corp uses the software for some minor task. Are they allowed? Is it the person or the corp "using" it? Not allowed. >If the latter, let's say me and my buddy both use the software individually, legally. We sit in the same room. Ok? We are together working on some non-profit project not involving the software. Ok? Now we use the software for it. Ok? Niw we make a profit. Ok? All allowed. The answer to all those questions are pretty simple and straight forward. I'm not sure why you're trying to muddy the waters here. >RMS would be pretty opposed to these ideas. RMS has failed catastrophically in his goal of letting users have access to the source code of the applications they use. I don't really care for what he has to say.
- MoOmer 4y ago
  I’m a fan of the Sustainable Use license [0] for this reason, for some projects! [0]: https://docs.n8n.io/choose-n8n/faircode-license/ https://docs.n8n.io/choose-n8n/faircode-license/
teddyh 4y ago
> I've been thinking about this problem a lot, since I'm trying to figure out how to sustain our open source project. It’s worrying, and maybe telling, that you don’t mention whom the project benefits. Who are the people who want this project to exist? Those are the people who would be willing to pay to ensure its continued existence and maintenance. Exactly what form that takes is mostly psychological, and will therefore depend on what types of other expenses those people are used to paying, and how they usually pay them.
- kgodey 4y ago
  > It’s worrying, and maybe telling, that you don’t mention whom the project benefits. I was trying to avoid talking about the specifics of the project (I didn't want to come across as self-promotional). We only did our first release this week, so no one is invested in the project (yet). We have hypotheses about who it benefits but haven't had enough time to test them. Our current goal is to build a user base and that will give us the information we need to work on long term sustainability.
  - teddyh 4y ago
    > no one is invested in the project (yet). We have hypotheses about who it benefits but haven't had enough time to test them. You mean to say you built an entire project, large enough to need “a few full-time people” to maintain it, without ever getting feedback from actual users? Chance alone almost guarantees that you built the wrong thing and nobody will want to use it.
sidPhoenix17 4y ago
> WordPress is very easy to use, Automattic builds it, but they are not the only ones to make money from it, and I think the incentives are well-aligned. It's interesting you mention this - Even Elastic started with this same model but then had some conflicts with Amazon being able to monetise ElasticSearch much more than Elastic themselves - so they eventually changed license and then Amazon forked into OpenSearch.. Here's the link for more context - https://www.elastic.co/blog/why-license-change-aws https://www.elastic.co/blog/why-license-change-aws Btw, wishing you best with your project!

by kgodey 4y ago

throw_human 4y ago

The best I've been able to come up is that freedom 0 applies only to humans. If a non-human entity is running the software, viz. some sort of corporation, then it is not allowed to without a (expensive) license. I want to make the world better for people, not for Amazon.

sneak 4y ago
Corporations don't exist. Amazon is made of people: shareholders and staff. Software doesn't run itself and corporations don't run software: human beings do. There's no such thing as a non-human entity running software.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mattigames 4y ago
  From his/her wording I assume they mean some unspecified threshold before a group of people is considered a corporation. From my limited understanding I think it could be useful to have a license that is only for free for organizations made of (for example) 10 people or less.
  - throw_human 4y ago
    The license is only granted to natural born persons. The only people who don't grasp this simple fact are the ones who have never worked in a corporation. They very much own and run things legally. Which is why when the liquidation man comes a knocking you don't lose your shirt for owning stock in Enron.
    - yuhaa98 4y ago
      Now let's say somebody in a corp uses the software for some minor task. Are they allowed? Is it the person or the corp "using" it? If the latter, let's say me and my buddy both use the software individually, legally. We sit in the same room. Ok? We are together working on some non-profit project not involving the software. Ok? Now we use the software for it. Ok? Niw we make a profit. Ok? Where do you draw the line? RMS would be pretty opposed to these ideas.
      - throw_human 4y ago
        > Now let's say somebody in a corp uses the software for some minor task. Are they allowed? Is it the person or the corp "using" it? Not allowed. >If the latter, let's say me and my buddy both use the software individually, legally. We sit in the same room. Ok? We are together working on some non-profit project not involving the software. Ok? Now we use the software for it. Ok? Niw we make a profit. Ok? All allowed. The answer to all those questions are pretty simple and straight forward. I'm not sure why you're trying to muddy the waters here. >RMS would be pretty opposed to these ideas. RMS has failed catastrophically in his goal of letting users have access to the source code of the applications they use. I don't really care for what he has to say.
MoOmer 4y ago
I’m a fan of the Sustainable Use license [0] for this reason, for some projects! [0]: https://docs.n8n.io/choose-n8n/faircode-license/ https://docs.n8n.io/choose-n8n/faircode-license/

teddyh 4y ago

> I've been thinking about this problem a lot, since I'm trying to figure out how to sustain our open source project. It’s worrying, and maybe telling, that you don’t mention whom the project benefits. Who are the people who want this project to exist? Those are the people who would be willing to pay to ensure its continued existence and maintenance. Exactly what form that takes is mostly psychological, and will therefore depend on what types of other expenses those people are used to paying, and how they usually pay them.

kgodey 4y ago
> It’s worrying, and maybe telling, that you don’t mention whom the project benefits. I was trying to avoid talking about the specifics of the project (I didn't want to come across as self-promotional). We only did our first release this week, so no one is invested in the project (yet). We have hypotheses about who it benefits but haven't had enough time to test them. Our current goal is to build a user base and that will give us the information we need to work on long term sustainability.
- teddyh 4y ago
  > no one is invested in the project (yet). We have hypotheses about who it benefits but haven't had enough time to test them. You mean to say you built an entire project, large enough to need “a few full-time people” to maintain it, without ever getting feedback from actual users? Chance alone almost guarantees that you built the wrong thing and nobody will want to use it.

sidPhoenix17 4y ago

> WordPress is very easy to use, Automattic builds it, but they are not the only ones to make money from it, and I think the incentives are well-aligned. It's interesting you mention this - Even Elastic started with this same model but then had some conflicts with Amazon being able to monetise ElasticSearch much more than Elastic themselves - so they eventually changed license and then Amazon forked into OpenSearch.. Here's the link for more context - https://www.elastic.co/blog/why-license-change-aws https://www.elastic.co/blog/why-license-change-aws Btw, wishing you best with your project!