3 ms·
IMO, companies should go source available by default instead of bait and switch FOSS. If your business model isn't compatible with FOSS (which I would argue mo
by candiddevmike 3y ago
IMO, companies should go source available by default instead of bait and switch FOSS. If your business model isn't compatible with FOSS (which I would argue most aren't), don't do it.
I think being honest with your intentions up front has value, and you can charge for your software in a way that doesn't create a financial cliff when converting from free to paid (make up margins with volume etc).
I hope the rest of the ecosystem starts to feel this way and becomes comfortable paying for software again, especially from a sustainability perspective.
- wmf 3y agoNewer startups will probably be BUSL from day one. What we're seeing now are ZIRP startups reaching the limits of their old "open-source it and they will come" strategy.
- carterschonwald 3y agoWhat’s ZIRP mean?
- ignoramous 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_interest-rate_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_interest-rate_policy I guess they mean startups funded during the past few years when US VCs were awash with cash.
- beembeem 3y agoZero Interest Rate Policy
- Macha 3y agoI don't think so - many of these applications would never have reached the size and popularity they did as closed source or source available. We'll probably see more "open source for the growth, slam shut to monetise easier", but I think each one that does so will reduce trust in all such software, so I'd expect ultimately it will lead to companies either picking "definitely proprietary but with known terms" or "full on open source, controlled by a foundation" and avoiding this company=project middle ground.
- josephcsible 3y agoYou don't need it to be controlled by a foundation to prevent this kind of bait and switch. You just need a copyleft license and willingness to accept external contributions without a CLA.
- hnbad 3y agoGood luck getting VC money that way though.
- evanelias 3y agoMany of them also raised tens of millions (or more) in VC funding, which helped them achieve their size and popularity. In a post-ZIRP world, many public tech company valuations have been slashed, and tech IPOs have slowed. Not-yet-profitable private tech companies can struggle to raise funding rounds now at favorable valuations, compared to their last funding round. If you're a VC-funded open source company with no deep moat, this is not a good time. I agree with the GP, we'll likely see more new companies choosing non-open-source but still source-available (e.g. BSL or SSPL) from the start.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]