5 ms·
As with many more modern "Open source" projects, the openness is more of a "You can try for free, and once you need production level SLA come call us". While th
by drdrek 2y ago
As with many more modern "Open source" projects, the openness is more of a "You can try for free, and once you need production level SLA come call us". While the source code is available to look at it's more of a facade as almost no one change it but the owning company. Limited by complexity of the project, maintainer politics and IP around supporting tools and materials.
OSS has basically theseus shiped into something completely different.
Not a criticism just an observation.
- Arrowmaster 2y agoOne key element often overlooked but mentioned in the recent post from Fusion Auth is the Business Continuity aspect. If your provider suddenly shuts down but the product was open source and self hostable, you can pay someone else to keep it working while you work on a migration plan on your own timeline. The more open the license, the more options available.
- Galxeagle 2y agoAlso from a license negotiation perspective, gives the buying company the option to threaten to self-host and/or fork. Even if they never do (and I'm sure the source company is very careful to balance the value story), it can act as a ceiling for rate increases or other annoying business practices. Why would a company ever open-source their product then? Giving up that complete leverage can be a selling point during the purchasing process, making buyers more comfortable that they won't be (completely) locked in, and be a net positive on revenue through faster sales.