3 ms·

People want to call their software open source, because it attracts customers. They don’t believe in software freedoms or open source, otherwise they’d never t

by sneak 11mo ago

People want to call their software open source, because it attracts customers. They don’t believe in software freedoms or open source, otherwise they’d never try or want to restrict Freedom 0. If your SaaS can’t compete on the service part, the software part ain’t gonna make or break you.

Imustaskforhelp 11mo ago
> If your SaaS can’t compete on the service part No the problem is that it cant compete on the hardware part sometimes Lets face it even if it something is open source, chances are that the most contributions/time are still spent by the person making it or the saas provider in this industry. Imagine that someone goes ahead and launches a cheaper version of their saas and people go use that, since that person isnt having his time invested in the software as much as the original person and thus is willing to undercut him because his investment/returns expectations are very minimal whereas for the original saas it can be very high (writing good quality software which costs some developers real time and even real money)
- Joker_vD 11mo ago
  Okay, I've imagined that. Am I supposed to sympathise with the end users in this scenario or?..
  - Imustaskforhelp 11mo ago
    Well this actually proves my point even further because the end users just care about price sometimes and since other competition with less investment can drive the company who created the software in the first place by undercutting them This shows that, Companies shouldn't create open source software itself if people have such mindset since creating open source software/software in general takes sometime and it sucks if I create something, then someone grabs it and undercuts me. This is the reason why people create source available licenses/use them. Time to create software isnt free in my opinion and we shouldnt treat it as such Plus, what I am saying is that these licenses dont allow you to not self host, they allow you to self host, they are basically like MIT except with one clause that doesnt allow the vps providers/datacenters/other companies to compete directly against you. Its the best of both worlds in a way. You get money which can allow you to work full time on the project Most people can audit the code/still run it locally/on their own VPS People who want to rent your open source software basically by having infrastructure/undercutting you etc. actively harming you and both the community etc. are unable to bypass the intricacies of licenses.
xigoi 11mo ago
Why do people feel entitled to profitting off the work of others?
- mirzap 11mo ago
  It's not entitlement, it's the entire purpose of OSS. You are free to modify, distribute, and profit from other people's code. If you can't do any of these things, then the project is NOT OSS. Simple as that. Entitlement is when you expect that OSS contributors must provide you with a warranty or a certain feature you need for your business activity. They are not.
  - xigoi 11mo ago
    Nowhere in the license does it claim that it’s an Open Source™ license.
    - mirzap 11mo ago
      People who use it claim it's Open Source
      - xigoi 11mo ago
        They are using “open source” as a generic descriptor, not as the unregistered trademark of the OSI.
        mirzap 11mo ago
        Yes, and that is the problem. That "descriptor" is not correct. The correct descriptor is "source available".
        xigoi 11mo ago
        The descriptor is correct. The source is available to you, free of charge, and you can do anything with it as long as you extend the same rights to your users.
nlitened 11mo ago
> If your SaaS can’t compete on the service part, the software part ain’t gonna make or break you. Oh, your bootstrapped team can’t simultaneously develop from scratch and support the new open source software project AND outcompete a multi-billion dollar business who decided to offer your service as a below-cost addon to their offering used by millions of people on day one? Tough luck, greedy bastard, you should have stayed in your cubicle.

by sneak 11mo ago

Imustaskforhelp 11mo ago

> If your SaaS can’t compete on the service part No the problem is that it cant compete on the hardware part sometimes Lets face it even if it something is open source, chances are that the most contributions/time are still spent by the person making it or the saas provider in this industry. Imagine that someone goes ahead and launches a cheaper version of their saas and people go use that, since that person isnt having his time invested in the software as much as the original person and thus is willing to undercut him because his investment/returns expectations are very minimal whereas for the original saas it can be very high (writing good quality software which costs some developers real time and even real money)

Joker_vD 11mo ago
Okay, I've imagined that. Am I supposed to sympathise with the end users in this scenario or?..
- Imustaskforhelp 11mo ago
  Well this actually proves my point even further because the end users just care about price sometimes and since other competition with less investment can drive the company who created the software in the first place by undercutting them This shows that, Companies shouldn't create open source software itself if people have such mindset since creating open source software/software in general takes sometime and it sucks if I create something, then someone grabs it and undercuts me. This is the reason why people create source available licenses/use them. Time to create software isnt free in my opinion and we shouldnt treat it as such Plus, what I am saying is that these licenses dont allow you to not self host, they allow you to self host, they are basically like MIT except with one clause that doesnt allow the vps providers/datacenters/other companies to compete directly against you. Its the best of both worlds in a way. You get money which can allow you to work full time on the project Most people can audit the code/still run it locally/on their own VPS People who want to rent your open source software basically by having infrastructure/undercutting you etc. actively harming you and both the community etc. are unable to bypass the intricacies of licenses.

xigoi 11mo ago

Why do people feel entitled to profitting off the work of others?

mirzap 11mo ago
It's not entitlement, it's the entire purpose of OSS. You are free to modify, distribute, and profit from other people's code. If you can't do any of these things, then the project is NOT OSS. Simple as that. Entitlement is when you expect that OSS contributors must provide you with a warranty or a certain feature you need for your business activity. They are not.
- xigoi 11mo ago
  Nowhere in the license does it claim that it’s an Open Source™ license.
  - mirzap 11mo ago
    People who use it claim it's Open Source
    - xigoi 11mo ago
      They are using “open source” as a generic descriptor, not as the unregistered trademark of the OSI.
      - mirzap 11mo ago
        Yes, and that is the problem. That "descriptor" is not correct. The correct descriptor is "source available".
        xigoi 11mo ago
        The descriptor is correct. The source is available to you, free of charge, and you can do anything with it as long as you extend the same rights to your users.

nlitened 11mo ago

> If your SaaS can’t compete on the service part, the software part ain’t gonna make or break you. Oh, your bootstrapped team can’t simultaneously develop from scratch and support the new open source software project AND outcompete a multi-billion dollar business who decided to offer your service as a below-cost addon to their offering used by millions of people on day one? Tough luck, greedy bastard, you should have stayed in your cubicle.