3 ms·

"I think the subtext of that advice is that you're still making something that is eventually excludable/controllable" And the unstated assumption of that inter

by inimino 18y ago

"I think the subtext of that advice is that you're still making something that is eventually excludable/controllable" And the unstated assumption of that interpretation is that it is impossible to make money without coercion.

gojomo 18y ago
That's not a fair reading; I don't assume that coercion is necessary to make money (nor do I believe PG assumes that). Excludability ≠ coercion. An advertising-supported site can exclude non-payers from using their advertising inventory. Money is made without coercion (and free/open-source software might be provided as an audience generator). A consulting/services/support business can refuse to provide their service to non-clients. Money is made without coercion (and free/open-source software might be central to the delivery of services or expression of expertise). A paid-subscription website can exclude non-subscribers. Money is made without coercion (and free/open-source software might be provided as a complement to the paise service). The OP's proposal of angel-funding an open-source library presents a challenging case, unless some excludable complementary product can be offered. Only the dual-licensing strategy could vaguely be said to include coercion, if you believe enforcement of copyleft or copyright is coercive. And as I noted, that approach requires overcoming other market/sales/staying-power difficulties. If you have other ideas for turning a open-source library into a money-making non-coercive business, please share -- especially if they somehow work without excludability. I'm very interested in this topic.
- inimino 18y ago
  I may have misread your post a bit, I was responding mainly to the dual-licensing suggestion (which read to me like a suggestion for getting around the right to fork; i.e. the "open source in name only" business model). Your points about service businesses are well-taken, though I think this is a hard and uncertain road to turning a profit. As for turning free software into a money-maker, I think not-for-profit is the stable state of a perfectly efficient software industry. That doesn't mean programmers couldn't be well paid, but it's likely nothing that would be terribly attractive to VC.

by inimino 18y ago

gojomo 18y ago

That's not a fair reading; I don't assume that coercion is necessary to make money (nor do I believe PG assumes that). Excludability ≠ coercion. An advertising-supported site can exclude non-payers from using their advertising inventory. Money is made without coercion (and free/open-source software might be provided as an audience generator). A consulting/services/support business can refuse to provide their service to non-clients. Money is made without coercion (and free/open-source software might be central to the delivery of services or expression of expertise). A paid-subscription website can exclude non-subscribers. Money is made without coercion (and free/open-source software might be provided as a complement to the paise service). The OP's proposal of angel-funding an open-source library presents a challenging case, unless some excludable complementary product can be offered. Only the dual-licensing strategy could vaguely be said to include coercion, if you believe enforcement of copyleft or copyright is coercive. And as I noted, that approach requires overcoming other market/sales/staying-power difficulties. If you have other ideas for turning a open-source library into a money-making non-coercive business, please share -- especially if they somehow work without excludability. I'm very interested in this topic.

inimino 18y ago
I may have misread your post a bit, I was responding mainly to the dual-licensing suggestion (which read to me like a suggestion for getting around the right to fork; i.e. the "open source in name only" business model). Your points about service businesses are well-taken, though I think this is a hard and uncertain road to turning a profit. As for turning free software into a money-maker, I think not-for-profit is the stable state of a perfectly efficient software industry. That doesn't mean programmers couldn't be well paid, but it's likely nothing that would be terribly attractive to VC.