4 ms·

Does anyone genuinely make their choices for what product to use based on if its source is available? I don't want to read the source code, I want to use the p

Does anyone genuinely make their choices for what product to use based on if its source is available? I don't want to read the source code, I want to use the product. If there is a bug, I want you to fix it. If you don't fix it, why am I paying you / using it? Assuming I am a programmer (many users aren't) and make my own patch, and you don't merge it, I'm still screwed. Source only helps me if I'm the one running the code. So the fact that your SaaS is source available has no bearing on my use of it.

ezekg 2y ago
I think a big value prop is that it reduces vendor lock-in, especially when depending on a new company. If the company fails, you can self-host and even fork. You can also choose to self-host for compliance reasons if your sector doesn't jive well with multi-tenant SaaS.
nijave 2y ago
Source available can be helpful if you want a local dev setup or testing environment. >Source only helps me if I'm the one running the code Many times I've gotten better support when I open a Github issue and send the link to support--usually I can get around all the canned troubleshooting steps and get to an engineer quicker. >So the fact that your SaaS is source available has no bearing on my use of it You can tell if the product is garbage before you pay for it (does this place review changes, do they have automated tests??) imo it's still helpful although small. If you're looking to run it yourself, sometimes source available can quickly be ruled out--especially if your company reviews and tracks license terms and doesn't want the headache of something custom/complicated
renewiltord 2y ago
Yeah. Part of why I picked Kong at a previous job was that it was modifiable and open-source, and the enterprise plugins were modifiable and source-available. It allowed us to deploy custom versions of them for our own use-case.
jckahn 2y ago
Yes. I avoid closed source software whenever it is practical to do so.
p1necone 2y ago
If you're a large commercial software house, with $$$$$ of revenue riding on things working/being able to develop features quickly the usual "contact support, tell them about issue, wait for fix" flow can cost you a lot of time and money. Even large businesses that don't produce software as a product often have internal dev teams that customize third party software to their needs (at least in the particular vertical that I'm involved in). It's immaterial in these cases whether the code is properly open source or not, but being able to go in yourself and fix minor bugs that are blocking you in hours/days rather than the weeks/months it might take the vendor to get back with a fix is practically a hard requirement for any dependencies that are core to your business.
dysoco 2y ago
I'm not an OSS zealot but when there are many options available all of similar quality, or I don't care about advanced features, I almost always pick the OSS alternative. e.g. music players, pdf readers, note taking software, etc. In this case since it's more of a SaaS I don't know if I would make that choice, I'm not familiar with billing software however not being 3rd party dependent and knowing you could self-host later if needed sounds useful.
tyzoid 2y ago
It's not strictly a SaaS if the license allows you to host it yourself at no cost.
lytedev 2y ago
Of course some people do! Programmers mostly, I would expect, since they can possibly patch or audit code which may be a requirement. Personally, I would never reach for a tool or component or any piece of software if I have to run or operate it unless I can change the code. Now, "source available" has another implication, however...
elric 2y ago
Lots of businesses have agreements with vendors to keep the source code in escrow, in order for the business to be able to ensure continuity if the vendor goes out of business or abandons the product.
- csdreamer7 2y ago
  How does that work exactly? They have rights to get a 3rd party to maintain the product if the original vendor goes out of business?
  - elric 2y ago
    They can either maintain it themselves, or let another party do it for them, indeed. The contracts specify under which circumstances the code can be released, but usually it's going out of business or cancelling a product. It's something we had to deal with in a previous job where we (as a small company) sold products to Global 500 companies. Either we agreed to this, or there would be no deal. Every time we released a new version to those clients, we would place the updated source code (along with documentation and tooling etc) in escrow.
    - csdreamer7 2y ago
      Ty for the info. What exactly is escrow for source code? Some party you paid to upload a tar.gz to an sftp server?
      - eichin 2y ago
        When I've done it in the past, it was a vaguely tech-savvy law firm (the hard part isn't really the storage, it's the "evaluate the conditions of the escrow contract release terms".) (IIRC recommended by the customer but we had some independent validation - I think one of our VC's law firms had dealt with them before?) We also had to details on how to actually build the product from the source, though I think they mostly just trusted us on that as long as we supplied a separate document - and by trusted, there were penalties spelled out in the contract about that too. (We were in good shape releng-wise but I expect a lot of companies would have to clean up their act to actually comply with that part.)

ezekg 2y ago

I think a big value prop is that it reduces vendor lock-in, especially when depending on a new company. If the company fails, you can self-host and even fork. You can also choose to self-host for compliance reasons if your sector doesn't jive well with multi-tenant SaaS.

nijave 2y ago

Source available can be helpful if you want a local dev setup or testing environment. >Source only helps me if I'm the one running the code Many times I've gotten better support when I open a Github issue and send the link to support--usually I can get around all the canned troubleshooting steps and get to an engineer quicker. >So the fact that your SaaS is source available has no bearing on my use of it You can tell if the product is garbage before you pay for it (does this place review changes, do they have automated tests??) imo it's still helpful although small. If you're looking to run it yourself, sometimes source available can quickly be ruled out--especially if your company reviews and tracks license terms and doesn't want the headache of something custom/complicated

renewiltord 2y ago

Yeah. Part of why I picked Kong at a previous job was that it was modifiable and open-source, and the enterprise plugins were modifiable and source-available. It allowed us to deploy custom versions of them for our own use-case.

jckahn 2y ago

Yes. I avoid closed source software whenever it is practical to do so.

p1necone 2y ago

If you're a large commercial software house, with $$$$$ of revenue riding on things working/being able to develop features quickly the usual "contact support, tell them about issue, wait for fix" flow can cost you a lot of time and money. Even large businesses that don't produce software as a product often have internal dev teams that customize third party software to their needs (at least in the particular vertical that I'm involved in). It's immaterial in these cases whether the code is properly open source or not, but being able to go in yourself and fix minor bugs that are blocking you in hours/days rather than the weeks/months it might take the vendor to get back with a fix is practically a hard requirement for any dependencies that are core to your business.

dysoco 2y ago

I'm not an OSS zealot but when there are many options available all of similar quality, or I don't care about advanced features, I almost always pick the OSS alternative. e.g. music players, pdf readers, note taking software, etc. In this case since it's more of a SaaS I don't know if I would make that choice, I'm not familiar with billing software however not being 3rd party dependent and knowing you could self-host later if needed sounds useful.

tyzoid 2y ago

It's not strictly a SaaS if the license allows you to host it yourself at no cost.

lytedev 2y ago

Of course some people do! Programmers mostly, I would expect, since they can possibly patch or audit code which may be a requirement. Personally, I would never reach for a tool or component or any piece of software if I have to run or operate it unless I can change the code. Now, "source available" has another implication, however...

elric 2y ago

Lots of businesses have agreements with vendors to keep the source code in escrow, in order for the business to be able to ensure continuity if the vendor goes out of business or abandons the product.

csdreamer7 2y ago
How does that work exactly? They have rights to get a 3rd party to maintain the product if the original vendor goes out of business?
- elric 2y ago
  They can either maintain it themselves, or let another party do it for them, indeed. The contracts specify under which circumstances the code can be released, but usually it's going out of business or cancelling a product. It's something we had to deal with in a previous job where we (as a small company) sold products to Global 500 companies. Either we agreed to this, or there would be no deal. Every time we released a new version to those clients, we would place the updated source code (along with documentation and tooling etc) in escrow.
  - csdreamer7 2y ago
    Ty for the info. What exactly is escrow for source code? Some party you paid to upload a tar.gz to an sftp server?
    - eichin 2y ago
      When I've done it in the past, it was a vaguely tech-savvy law firm (the hard part isn't really the storage, it's the "evaluate the conditions of the escrow contract release terms".) (IIRC recommended by the customer but we had some independent validation - I think one of our VC's law firms had dealt with them before?) We also had to details on how to actually build the product from the source, though I think they mostly just trusted us on that as long as we supplied a separate document - and by trusted, there were penalties spelled out in the contract about that too. (We were in good shape releng-wise but I expect a lot of companies would have to clean up their act to actually comply with that part.)