3 ms·

FOSS doesn't have to be free. It's entirely possible to sell software and provide the source. The real problem is that it's not clear how to charge for FOSS.

by nsmartt 13y ago

lambda 13y ago
Well, Red Hat somehow manages to make over $1B per year selling FOSS. So, I'm not sure it's right to say that it's not clear how to charge for FOSS. You sell a branded, licensed, and supported bundle of it to businesses, while simultaneously collaborating with the community on a free, unsupported, differently branded version that moves more quickly and is more experimental. Now, the question is, can you make as much as Microsoft makes on this kind of model? There are tons of people who are perfectly content to use unsupported, unlicensed versions of their software, in the form of CentOS, Scientific Linux, Fedora, or other distros which incorporate a lot of software that Red Hat primarily funds development on. Likewise, there would probably be a lot of people who figured it would be cheaper to stop licensing Windows, if possible, and deal with support issues themselves (or via other "distros" of Windows which were supported but cheaper or free).
- teh_klev 13y ago
  Couple of things you have wrong here: 1. RedHat make pretty much most of their money from support, training/cert and consultancy services, not selling F/OSS. 2. Your comment: "There are tons of people who are perfectly content to use unsupported, unlicensed versions of their software, in the form of CentOS, Scientific Linux, Fedora" RHEL is licensed under the GPL, they can't really change that and they can't not release the source, so CentOS, SL, Fedora (and Oracle Linux) are not actually unlicensed, they're GPL licensed distros from the RH upstream. Yes they may be unsupported, but they're certainly not "unlicensed" (or illegal/rip-offs if that's what you meant by unlicensed). RedHat have no choice but to make the RHEL source available. You also forget that the Fedora folks feed back into RHEL a lot of cutting edge stuff that's stable.
  - lambda 13y ago
    1. That's actually not true; I even checked before posting. Check out their annual report, page 43: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/RHAT/2659386793x0x581760/6FEDF811-091A-49BB-8EB2-83C31DC561AB/Annual_Report_062512_Final_Bookmarked.pdf http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/RHAT/2659386793x0x581... (numbers are in thousands) > Subscriptions ... $ 965,575 > Training and services ... 167,528 They do, in fact, make most of their money from subscriptions (yes, selling FOSS), not training and services. 2. I apologize, I was unclear. I was referring to licenses that bore revenue, not all licenses. You need to buy a license to run RHEL, even if you can run all of the same actual software (just without the branding) in the form of CentOS or other distros. I didn't really mean "unlicensed", since obviously all of the software is under the GPL or other free software licenses, I meant "without buying a license from Red Hat". I was not trying to imply people were ripping off Red Hat, just that they aren't paying for it. And no, I don't forget that Fedora feeds back into Red Hat. I explicitly listed Fedora as part of the strategy for how to make money selling free software; you sell a supported, branded, stable version to corporations, and release a free, frequently updated, bleeding edge for the community. That second part is important because it helps drive innovation, and allows you to take advantage of collaboration from outside contributors, while still deriving revenue from your enterprise distro. I'm just not sure if Microsoft could continue to make the kind of money that they do, if they chose to go a Red Hat route, as there would be a large number of people who would choose to run free-as-in-beer distros (the Windows equivalent of CentOS or Fedora) rather than a paid version of Windows. Red Hat shows that it is possible to get people to buy paid licenses for free software; but I don't know if there are enough people for that to be a strategically viable move for Microsoft.
- nsmartt 13y ago
  > I'm not sure it's right to say that it's not clear how to charge for FOSS. I said this because many people have a fundamental misunderstanding of open-source, and insist that open-source software cannot be sold. Your response makes a lot of sense, but it's not really applicable to smaller scale products, and it's certainly not applicable to web-services, which are significantly easier to rip-off.
Sandman 13y ago
Why is it not clear? You pay for the license. The license grants you the right to use the binaries, and to inspect and modify the source code. If you don't pay for the license, then you do not have the right to use the binaries or to inspect and modify the source code. So anybody who possesses binaries and/or source code and can't prove that they legally obtained them (by paying the license fee) is in violation of the license. It's exactly the same as with closed source software, only here you get the additional right to use the source code any way you please.
- nsmartt 13y ago
  There are many nuances that change when it comes to selling an open-source license. How am I to ensure that users can't simply offer my product, with a slight modification, for free? It's not as simple as providing the license on payment. I legitimately have no idea how I would prevent legal forks, ensure proper credit, etc.

FOSS doesn't have to be free. It's entirely possible to sell software and provide the source. The real problem is that it's not clear how to charge for FOSS.

by nsmartt 13y ago

FOSS doesn't have to be free. It's entirely possible to sell software and provide the source. The real problem is that it's not clear how to charge for FOSS.

lambda 13y ago

Well, Red Hat somehow manages to make over $1B per year selling FOSS. So, I'm not sure it's right to say that it's not clear how to charge for FOSS. You sell a branded, licensed, and supported bundle of it to businesses, while simultaneously collaborating with the community on a free, unsupported, differently branded version that moves more quickly and is more experimental. Now, the question is, can you make as much as Microsoft makes on this kind of model? There are tons of people who are perfectly content to use unsupported, unlicensed versions of their software, in the form of CentOS, Scientific Linux, Fedora, or other distros which incorporate a lot of software that Red Hat primarily funds development on. Likewise, there would probably be a lot of people who figured it would be cheaper to stop licensing Windows, if possible, and deal with support issues themselves (or via other "distros" of Windows which were supported but cheaper or free).

teh_klev 13y ago
Couple of things you have wrong here: 1. RedHat make pretty much most of their money from support, training/cert and consultancy services, not selling F/OSS. 2. Your comment: "There are tons of people who are perfectly content to use unsupported, unlicensed versions of their software, in the form of CentOS, Scientific Linux, Fedora" RHEL is licensed under the GPL, they can't really change that and they can't not release the source, so CentOS, SL, Fedora (and Oracle Linux) are not actually unlicensed, they're GPL licensed distros from the RH upstream. Yes they may be unsupported, but they're certainly not "unlicensed" (or illegal/rip-offs if that's what you meant by unlicensed). RedHat have no choice but to make the RHEL source available. You also forget that the Fedora folks feed back into RHEL a lot of cutting edge stuff that's stable.
- lambda 13y ago
  1. That's actually not true; I even checked before posting. Check out their annual report, page 43: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/RHAT/2659386793x0x581760/6FEDF811-091A-49BB-8EB2-83C31DC561AB/Annual_Report_062512_Final_Bookmarked.pdf http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/RHAT/2659386793x0x581... (numbers are in thousands) > Subscriptions ... $ 965,575 > Training and services ... 167,528 They do, in fact, make most of their money from subscriptions (yes, selling FOSS), not training and services. 2. I apologize, I was unclear. I was referring to licenses that bore revenue, not all licenses. You need to buy a license to run RHEL, even if you can run all of the same actual software (just without the branding) in the form of CentOS or other distros. I didn't really mean "unlicensed", since obviously all of the software is under the GPL or other free software licenses, I meant "without buying a license from Red Hat". I was not trying to imply people were ripping off Red Hat, just that they aren't paying for it. And no, I don't forget that Fedora feeds back into Red Hat. I explicitly listed Fedora as part of the strategy for how to make money selling free software; you sell a supported, branded, stable version to corporations, and release a free, frequently updated, bleeding edge for the community. That second part is important because it helps drive innovation, and allows you to take advantage of collaboration from outside contributors, while still deriving revenue from your enterprise distro. I'm just not sure if Microsoft could continue to make the kind of money that they do, if they chose to go a Red Hat route, as there would be a large number of people who would choose to run free-as-in-beer distros (the Windows equivalent of CentOS or Fedora) rather than a paid version of Windows. Red Hat shows that it is possible to get people to buy paid licenses for free software; but I don't know if there are enough people for that to be a strategically viable move for Microsoft.
nsmartt 13y ago
> I'm not sure it's right to say that it's not clear how to charge for FOSS. I said this because many people have a fundamental misunderstanding of open-source, and insist that open-source software cannot be sold. Your response makes a lot of sense, but it's not really applicable to smaller scale products, and it's certainly not applicable to web-services, which are significantly easier to rip-off.

Sandman 13y ago

Why is it not clear? You pay for the license. The license grants you the right to use the binaries, and to inspect and modify the source code. If you don't pay for the license, then you do not have the right to use the binaries or to inspect and modify the source code. So anybody who possesses binaries and/or source code and can't prove that they legally obtained them (by paying the license fee) is in violation of the license. It's exactly the same as with closed source software, only here you get the additional right to use the source code any way you please.

nsmartt 13y ago
There are many nuances that change when it comes to selling an open-source license. How am I to ensure that users can't simply offer my product, with a slight modification, for free? It's not as simple as providing the license on payment. I legitimately have no idea how I would prevent legal forks, ensure proper credit, etc.