6 ms·

>>When we discuss open source business models with other founders, there are three complaints that come up again and again. These are: - People might criticize

>>When we discuss open source business models with other founders, there are three complaints that come up again and again. These are: - People might criticize my messy/bad/unfinished code - Hackers will find and exploit security holes - Competitors will steal my Intellectual Property I think they are missing a 4th item which is "Amazon/AWS will commercialise and sell a service based on my code and not pay me anything."

flurdy 3y ago
That is covered further down in the "Late stage" paragraph. Basically, you are already winning if the big ones try to emulate you, though some advanced planning to mitigate this is needed. But it should not be the focus nor worry at the start, if I interpret the article correctly.
- gadders 3y ago
  I would suggest (and I've run zero companies and I'm just going by what I read on here) that if you want to open source your project, from the start pick a license so that big cloud companies can't commercialise your product for free. People seem to get really salty when companies change their license further down the line to prevent this.
  - sneak 3y ago
    Those licenses aren’t open source. People get salty because those license changes are from open source to source available (like the BSL). Some of us (myself included) even consider licenses like the AGPL to be nonfree. Free software can be used for any purpose, including competing with the original authors. If you can’t do whatever you want with the software, it’s not free software. If you want to open source your software but you want to put restrictions on what people can do with it, then, well, you don’t want to open source your software (and IMO the free software community would be better off without your free software cosplay).
    - segfaltnh 3y ago
      But as a commercial consumer, I still value source available offerings quite a lot. I can debug my own issues with them, I can see how well they're built and I know thousands of eyes are looking at them. Depending on the software, I agree it's not as good for me as free software, but it's not worthless.
      - sneak 3y ago
        It’s not worthless, but I try to avoid supporting proprietary software companies. Being selfish isn’t a good look, especially when starting out as free software (Docker Desktop, I’m looking at you). I even strongly dislike actual free software releases with companies that have proprietary stuff alongside (so-called open core). It means that the people doing it don’t give a shit about software freedoms, otherwise they’d never consider releasing nonfree software. Mattermost is in this category (and further demonstrates their disdain for software freedoms by shipping nonconsensual spyware in their foss stuff and closing PRs that remove it). It’s really shady to position yourself as an open source company and then release any proprietary software.
        duggan 3y ago
        Do you carry this philosophy through to your professional life? As in, do you only work for companies that produce open source software? If so it's an admirable stance, and I hope you're successful. I imagine it's tricky (or at least unstable) to earn ones living working only for entirely open source companies, but maybe there are more opportunities out there than I'd realized.
        dartos 3y ago
        I can’t speak for everyone, but I’m at a point in my career where I can be a bit more picky about the jobs I take. I’m currently looking for a new SWE position and I prefer places that have active open source projects. I’d take less pay to work at somewhere that maintains and releases free software.
        3y ago
  - RobotToaster 3y ago
    I honestly don't get why more people don't just use the AGPL. Mastodon et al prove it works.
    - Kalium 3y ago
      I would hesitate to characterize a service running on grants and donations as a good model for your typical startup to imitate.
      - forgotmypw17 3y ago
        Why not? It is one of the most sustainable models if you want to maintain quality and avoid enshittification.
        Kalium 3y ago
        The VC-oriented financial model (that is, your typical startup) is fundamentally incompatible with Mastodon's non-profit financial model. As a result, very different choices around licensing, funding, and business structure are good fits. Each tool has its use and serves its specific purpose. What works for Mastodon might not work for others trying to advance different goals.
        mcny 3y ago
        Nobody should take VC money unless they absolutely have no other option.
        pc86 3y ago
        The primary goal of a startup is to make money through acquisition or IPO, and the primary goal of business more generally is to make money selling a good or service. Grants and donations don't really fit into that, and isn't the topic of this whether or not to open source the code of a commercial venture?
    - j1elo 3y ago
      Well, Mongo decided it doesn't really work. At least not for them, anyway. This is one of the most notorious case of relicensing from Open Source to source available cases, so it might be interesting for you to look into the reasons (it happened around 2018). In the end, the AGPL is huge but not a silver bullet.
  - EvanAnderson 3y ago
    > People seem to get really salty when companies change their license further down the line to prevent this. I think a lot of people get salty when a company changes their license to a source available license but still try to call it open source and free ride on the goodwill that open source software engenders. Don't call a license open source if it isn't and reasonable people will be fine with it.
    - gadders 3y ago
      I did say pick a license from the start. I'm not criticising people for having different philosophical positions on licensing.
      - EvanAnderson 3y ago
        I was addressing the point about the "saltiness" when licenses change. I wholeheartedly agree that making a thoughtful choice the company can live with from the start is the best policy.
- jackbravo 3y ago
  I agree that when a big cloud company tries to emulate you, you are already winning on a normal company. But maybe not for a venture-backed/big-exit-strategy startup. And probably, those early investors are the ones recommending against fully open-source business models.
londons_explore 3y ago
And the main one: It's really hard to make any money by giving your product away for free...
- addandsubtract 3y ago
  If you open source your product, your business product becomes hosting / maintenance / consultancy.
  - grotorea 3y ago
    Yes that's what you sell but if you also have development costs and your freeriding competitor doesn't, how often do the finances of it work out?
    - jraph 3y ago
      It may be difficult to freeride, you still need to know in depth how the product exactly works if you want to provide consultancy and support. Freeriding would break on the first tricky support ticket or the first feature you'd need in the product that isn't there yet. You get to know the product well enough if you start contributing and interacting with the main contributors, at which point you stop freeriding and you become a partner instead. The other way to do this would be to get an agreement from the main developers so you can be supported on your consulting and support activities, in which case you also become a partner. I tend to think both outcomes as beneficial to the main devs, who can always stop collaborating if it turns out they are not. Now, if your product is something for which nobody needs support or consultancy, you risk having the MongoDB-Amazon issue.
      - bashauma 3y ago
        > Now, if your product is something for which nobody needs support or consultancy, you risk having the MongoDB-Amazon issue. ...So, that is the problem isn't it? Basically, well-written software and documentation are meant to reduce the amount of support and consulting needed by users. Assuming your point is true, then for a company that sells support and consultants, enriching documentation, etc. would be an action in direct conflict with its own interests, wouldn't it? The MongoDB people are very passionate and have built a great software, documentation and user community... to the point where they no longer need to sell their own support. Therefore, it is my understanding that Amazon has decided to use their "support". (If you're saying that it doesn't matter to the users if the company lives or dies when there is already functioning software and community, that may be true)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kkielhofner 3y ago
> - People might criticize my messy/bad/unfinished code As someone who has created and maintained open source projects (most recently Willow[0]) for two decades I get a kick out of this. Of course when interacting with users and feedback I keep it polite but in my head I'm thinking "You like to talk. I actually DID this. Shut up or submit a PR". Surprise surprise they almost never do. Keep actually producing and shake the haters off! [0] - https://heywillow.io/ https://heywillow.io/
- jasonmarks_ 3y ago
  What is the financial backing that affords you the ability to offer your product for free? Everyone still has bills to pay AFAIK
  - kkielhofner 3y ago
    Two prior successful startup exits. I also do consulting and advisory work in adjacent spaces so this is pretty much my lifelong dream - spend my other time just doing open source projects I think are interesting.
tristan957 3y ago
You could just pick a better license like the GPL or AGPL. Cloud companies eating other open-source products up is purely the inability of those products to choose licenses that actually protect their work.

flurdy 3y ago

That is covered further down in the "Late stage" paragraph. Basically, you are already winning if the big ones try to emulate you, though some advanced planning to mitigate this is needed. But it should not be the focus nor worry at the start, if I interpret the article correctly.

gadders 3y ago
I would suggest (and I've run zero companies and I'm just going by what I read on here) that if you want to open source your project, from the start pick a license so that big cloud companies can't commercialise your product for free. People seem to get really salty when companies change their license further down the line to prevent this.
- sneak 3y ago
  Those licenses aren’t open source. People get salty because those license changes are from open source to source available (like the BSL). Some of us (myself included) even consider licenses like the AGPL to be nonfree. Free software can be used for any purpose, including competing with the original authors. If you can’t do whatever you want with the software, it’s not free software. If you want to open source your software but you want to put restrictions on what people can do with it, then, well, you don’t want to open source your software (and IMO the free software community would be better off without your free software cosplay).
  - segfaltnh 3y ago
    But as a commercial consumer, I still value source available offerings quite a lot. I can debug my own issues with them, I can see how well they're built and I know thousands of eyes are looking at them. Depending on the software, I agree it's not as good for me as free software, but it's not worthless.
    - sneak 3y ago
      It’s not worthless, but I try to avoid supporting proprietary software companies. Being selfish isn’t a good look, especially when starting out as free software (Docker Desktop, I’m looking at you). I even strongly dislike actual free software releases with companies that have proprietary stuff alongside (so-called open core). It means that the people doing it don’t give a shit about software freedoms, otherwise they’d never consider releasing nonfree software. Mattermost is in this category (and further demonstrates their disdain for software freedoms by shipping nonconsensual spyware in their foss stuff and closing PRs that remove it). It’s really shady to position yourself as an open source company and then release any proprietary software.
      - duggan 3y ago
        Do you carry this philosophy through to your professional life? As in, do you only work for companies that produce open source software? If so it's an admirable stance, and I hope you're successful. I imagine it's tricky (or at least unstable) to earn ones living working only for entirely open source companies, but maybe there are more opportunities out there than I'd realized.
        dartos 3y ago
        I can’t speak for everyone, but I’m at a point in my career where I can be a bit more picky about the jobs I take. I’m currently looking for a new SWE position and I prefer places that have active open source projects. I’d take less pay to work at somewhere that maintains and releases free software.
        3y ago
- RobotToaster 3y ago
  I honestly don't get why more people don't just use the AGPL. Mastodon et al prove it works.
  - Kalium 3y ago
    I would hesitate to characterize a service running on grants and donations as a good model for your typical startup to imitate.
    - forgotmypw17 3y ago
      Why not? It is one of the most sustainable models if you want to maintain quality and avoid enshittification.
      - Kalium 3y ago
        The VC-oriented financial model (that is, your typical startup) is fundamentally incompatible with Mastodon's non-profit financial model. As a result, very different choices around licensing, funding, and business structure are good fits. Each tool has its use and serves its specific purpose. What works for Mastodon might not work for others trying to advance different goals.
        mcny 3y ago
        Nobody should take VC money unless they absolutely have no other option.
      - pc86 3y ago
        The primary goal of a startup is to make money through acquisition or IPO, and the primary goal of business more generally is to make money selling a good or service. Grants and donations don't really fit into that, and isn't the topic of this whether or not to open source the code of a commercial venture?
  - j1elo 3y ago
    Well, Mongo decided it doesn't really work. At least not for them, anyway. This is one of the most notorious case of relicensing from Open Source to source available cases, so it might be interesting for you to look into the reasons (it happened around 2018). In the end, the AGPL is huge but not a silver bullet.
- EvanAnderson 3y ago
  > People seem to get really salty when companies change their license further down the line to prevent this. I think a lot of people get salty when a company changes their license to a source available license but still try to call it open source and free ride on the goodwill that open source software engenders. Don't call a license open source if it isn't and reasonable people will be fine with it.
  - gadders 3y ago
    I did say pick a license from the start. I'm not criticising people for having different philosophical positions on licensing.
    - EvanAnderson 3y ago
      I was addressing the point about the "saltiness" when licenses change. I wholeheartedly agree that making a thoughtful choice the company can live with from the start is the best policy.
jackbravo 3y ago
I agree that when a big cloud company tries to emulate you, you are already winning on a normal company. But maybe not for a venture-backed/big-exit-strategy startup. And probably, those early investors are the ones recommending against fully open-source business models.

londons_explore 3y ago

And the main one: It's really hard to make any money by giving your product away for free...

addandsubtract 3y ago
If you open source your product, your business product becomes hosting / maintenance / consultancy.
- grotorea 3y ago
  Yes that's what you sell but if you also have development costs and your freeriding competitor doesn't, how often do the finances of it work out?
  - jraph 3y ago
    It may be difficult to freeride, you still need to know in depth how the product exactly works if you want to provide consultancy and support. Freeriding would break on the first tricky support ticket or the first feature you'd need in the product that isn't there yet. You get to know the product well enough if you start contributing and interacting with the main contributors, at which point you stop freeriding and you become a partner instead. The other way to do this would be to get an agreement from the main developers so you can be supported on your consulting and support activities, in which case you also become a partner. I tend to think both outcomes as beneficial to the main devs, who can always stop collaborating if it turns out they are not. Now, if your product is something for which nobody needs support or consultancy, you risk having the MongoDB-Amazon issue.
    - bashauma 3y ago
      > Now, if your product is something for which nobody needs support or consultancy, you risk having the MongoDB-Amazon issue. ...So, that is the problem isn't it? Basically, well-written software and documentation are meant to reduce the amount of support and consulting needed by users. Assuming your point is true, then for a company that sells support and consultants, enriching documentation, etc. would be an action in direct conflict with its own interests, wouldn't it? The MongoDB people are very passionate and have built a great software, documentation and user community... to the point where they no longer need to sell their own support. Therefore, it is my understanding that Amazon has decided to use their "support". (If you're saying that it doesn't matter to the users if the company lives or dies when there is already functioning software and community, that may be true)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

kkielhofner 3y ago

> - People might criticize my messy/bad/unfinished code As someone who has created and maintained open source projects (most recently Willow[0]) for two decades I get a kick out of this. Of course when interacting with users and feedback I keep it polite but in my head I'm thinking "You like to talk. I actually DID this. Shut up or submit a PR". Surprise surprise they almost never do. Keep actually producing and shake the haters off! [0] - https://heywillow.io/ https://heywillow.io/

jasonmarks_ 3y ago
What is the financial backing that affords you the ability to offer your product for free? Everyone still has bills to pay AFAIK
- kkielhofner 3y ago
  Two prior successful startup exits. I also do consulting and advisory work in adjacent spaces so this is pretty much my lifelong dream - spend my other time just doing open source projects I think are interesting.

tristan957 3y ago

You could just pick a better license like the GPL or AGPL. Cloud companies eating other open-source products up is purely the inability of those products to choose licenses that actually protect their work.