3 ms·

> So the reason these deals are now possible is mainly because time was freed up by not having the code base opensource? No, it's that if all the code is free

by sqs 2y ago

> So the reason these deals are now possible is mainly because time was freed up by not having the code base opensource? No, it's that if all the code is free and open source for anyone, we would not be able to charge for it and there would be no deals. Even if, say, 60% of our product was open-source and 40% was closed source, we might still get a lot of direct customers but would struggle to do distribution partnerships because the distribution partners have outsized incentives and capacity to reimplement the subset of the 40% they think their market needs.

vundercind 2y ago
I believe the question came up because the original rationale given was “we did this to focus”, not “we couldn’t sell the code for as much if it was open source”.
- sqs 2y ago
  Both are factors, as I said in my original post (focus and risk).
  - vundercind 2y ago
    “We stopped giving away some of our apples due to risk.” “Of… liability? Or… uh, what?” “Oh—risk that we couldn’t sell the apples we gave away, obviously.”
    - sqs 2y ago
      I was thinking business risk. Sorry it wasn’t clear.
    - cdchn 2y ago
      Risking profit. I wish he'd just say it. The mealy mouthed justifications are just so transparently disingenuous.
      - eutropia 2y ago
        When someone speaks about business risk for a company which might not be breakeven profitable, the risk is not "we don't make enough money to chuckle sensibly into our wine goblets", the risk is "we have to lay off our engineering team and stop making software altogether". There's nothing mealy-mouthed about trying to provide insight into their decision-making process. They don't owe anyone other than their employees, customers, and investors (in that order) a justification for their decision making on something like this, and certainly after spilling a few paragraphs of text off the cuff can't be called disingenuous. This chorus of screeching that accompanies any reduction in commitment for a company involved in open-source is extremely off-putting to anyone who wants to try to build in the open and make a business out of it. It's free. Gratis. Provided without warranty. Do with it what you will, but it was never yours. They didn't take anything from you by closing the repo. It's really cool that it was available, and it sucks that it's not available going forward - but expecting any business-backed OSS projects to adhere to the same behaviors as a volunteer effort is just wishful thinking.
        maeil 2y ago
        You make good points, but to be fair, I feel it's more the beating around the bush that people take issue with.
        mistrial9 2y ago
        these are good points but there are fundamentals at odds, really.. no amount of "explaining" will make a choice.. there are partisan issues and as said, company survival is related to profitability is related to survival. also not mentioned so far is - this product has big implications for security by surveillance, with phone-home and instant-audit hooks, non-disclosed search for zero-day vulnerabilities, and more.. by closing the dev process, it appears that this product gets one step closer to a one-way mirror model that some customers will pay really large amounts of money for..
        cdchn 2y ago
        >There's nothing mealy-mouthed about trying to provide insight into their decision-making process. They don't owe anyone other than their employees, customers, and investors (in that order) a justification for their decision making on something like this, and certainly after spilling a few paragraphs of text off the cuff can't be called disingenuous. When you say things like "we did it for the devs" thats mealy-mouthed and disingenuous. They don't owe anyone but their employees, customers, and investors an explanation, but then they start making public statements-- even if they are a few paragraphs and text off the cuff-- acting like they're doing it for _alutristic_ reasons. Rug pull your open source once you've gotten what business ends you desire out of it and when it conflicts with your open source goals; like you said its your you own it.
- tptacek 2y ago
  When a software business makes decisions in the name of "focus", they're usually implicitly saying the "on the stuff that will make the company more money" part. Focus implies product/market fit.

by sqs 2y ago

vundercind 2y ago

I believe the question came up because the original rationale given was “we did this to focus”, not “we couldn’t sell the code for as much if it was open source”.

sqs 2y ago
Both are factors, as I said in my original post (focus and risk).
- vundercind 2y ago
  “We stopped giving away some of our apples due to risk.” “Of… liability? Or… uh, what?” “Oh—risk that we couldn’t sell the apples we gave away, obviously.”
  - sqs 2y ago
    I was thinking business risk. Sorry it wasn’t clear.
  - cdchn 2y ago
    Risking profit. I wish he'd just say it. The mealy mouthed justifications are just so transparently disingenuous.
    - eutropia 2y ago
      When someone speaks about business risk for a company which might not be breakeven profitable, the risk is not "we don't make enough money to chuckle sensibly into our wine goblets", the risk is "we have to lay off our engineering team and stop making software altogether". There's nothing mealy-mouthed about trying to provide insight into their decision-making process. They don't owe anyone other than their employees, customers, and investors (in that order) a justification for their decision making on something like this, and certainly after spilling a few paragraphs of text off the cuff can't be called disingenuous. This chorus of screeching that accompanies any reduction in commitment for a company involved in open-source is extremely off-putting to anyone who wants to try to build in the open and make a business out of it. It's free. Gratis. Provided without warranty. Do with it what you will, but it was never yours. They didn't take anything from you by closing the repo. It's really cool that it was available, and it sucks that it's not available going forward - but expecting any business-backed OSS projects to adhere to the same behaviors as a volunteer effort is just wishful thinking.
      - maeil 2y ago
        You make good points, but to be fair, I feel it's more the beating around the bush that people take issue with.
      - mistrial9 2y ago
        these are good points but there are fundamentals at odds, really.. no amount of "explaining" will make a choice.. there are partisan issues and as said, company survival is related to profitability is related to survival. also not mentioned so far is - this product has big implications for security by surveillance, with phone-home and instant-audit hooks, non-disclosed search for zero-day vulnerabilities, and more.. by closing the dev process, it appears that this product gets one step closer to a one-way mirror model that some customers will pay really large amounts of money for..
      - cdchn 2y ago
        >There's nothing mealy-mouthed about trying to provide insight into their decision-making process. They don't owe anyone other than their employees, customers, and investors (in that order) a justification for their decision making on something like this, and certainly after spilling a few paragraphs of text off the cuff can't be called disingenuous. When you say things like "we did it for the devs" thats mealy-mouthed and disingenuous. They don't owe anyone but their employees, customers, and investors an explanation, but then they start making public statements-- even if they are a few paragraphs and text off the cuff-- acting like they're doing it for _alutristic_ reasons. Rug pull your open source once you've gotten what business ends you desire out of it and when it conflicts with your open source goals; like you said its your you own it.
tptacek 2y ago
When a software business makes decisions in the name of "focus", they're usually implicitly saying the "on the stuff that will make the company more money" part. Focus implies product/market fit.