3 ms·

Something can be pay for use and open source. What he did here was totally fine. Sidkiq is amazing, and what it replaces is kludgy. If Sidkiq or Riak want to ma

Something can be pay for use and open source. What he did here was totally fine. Sidkiq is amazing, and what it replaces is kludgy. If Sidkiq or Riak want to make a version that is specially geared for people that need software to scale then everybody wins. The people at scale win because they buy the software for peanuts and they were able to do so only after hitting product-market fit. The people starting startups win, since they get well designed software from someone that has self-interest to keep it going. I see no problem with this whatsoever. It isn't like the at-scale version of Sidekiq would ever have been built if it hadn't been for the cash. The only thing I would add would be that maybe he puts a sunset clause in there that auto-frees the source in a year or two. That way people won't waste time rebuilding the at-scale components.

davidw 13y ago
There's nothing at all wrong with what he did - it's just not 'making money from open source' per se. I guess you can argue he would not have made money were it not for the open source project, but the actual money is coming from what he's holding back.
- tedunangst 13y ago
  How does RedHat make money from open source? They hold back support.
  - davidw 13y ago
    Redhat's strategy is a bit more complex than that: They only support the official Redhat release, but that contains Redhat's trademarks, which you are not free to copy/modify/etc... and indeed, you have to pay for the official release. I think it ends up being that if you need the official Redhat, you pretty much have to buy it, and buy a long-term-ish support contract. In any event, support is not a public good along the lines of software: it's very much rivalrous and excludable.
    - tedunangst 13y ago
      In other words, redhat doesnt make money from open source. But nobody ever complains when they're held up as the poster child for how to make money from open source.
  - justin_vanw 13y ago
    You are missing the point completely. He tried selling support and failed miserably, he made no money. So, he issued a better version of the same software under a commercial license, and that sold well. RedHat does not do that. Everything they do is available in CentOS, or is available freely. They make money selling support. It's pretty obviously not a valid analogy.
    - Flimm 13y ago
      By "commercial license", I presume you mean a closed-source one.

davidw 13y ago

There's nothing at all wrong with what he did - it's just not 'making money from open source' per se. I guess you can argue he would not have made money were it not for the open source project, but the actual money is coming from what he's holding back.

tedunangst 13y ago
How does RedHat make money from open source? They hold back support.
- davidw 13y ago
  Redhat's strategy is a bit more complex than that: They only support the official Redhat release, but that contains Redhat's trademarks, which you are not free to copy/modify/etc... and indeed, you have to pay for the official release. I think it ends up being that if you need the official Redhat, you pretty much have to buy it, and buy a long-term-ish support contract. In any event, support is not a public good along the lines of software: it's very much rivalrous and excludable.
  - tedunangst 13y ago
    In other words, redhat doesnt make money from open source. But nobody ever complains when they're held up as the poster child for how to make money from open source.
- justin_vanw 13y ago
  You are missing the point completely. He tried selling support and failed miserably, he made no money. So, he issued a better version of the same software under a commercial license, and that sold well. RedHat does not do that. Everything they do is available in CentOS, or is available freely. They make money selling support. It's pretty obviously not a valid analogy.
  - Flimm 13y ago
    By "commercial license", I presume you mean a closed-source one.