4 ms·

The one group that I feel is somewhat entitled to the code is the customer base. Not open sourcing it is one thing, but I'd highly encourage the author to relea

by curun1r 12y ago

The one group that I feel is somewhat entitled to the code is the customer base. Not open sourcing it is one thing, but I'd highly encourage the author to release the code as shared source with only his former customers. They're the ones that tried to help make his startup a success. They're not the freeloaders. If they end up giving the code to someone else, then so be it...he's not making any more money off it anyways. Moreover, I think the shared source model is one that more companies should pursue from the beginning. For one, having light on the code from day 1 helps keep developers honest. Secondly, it establishes a trust relationship with customers that can be very powerful. And lastly, it eliminates one element of fear in the purchasing decision...potential customers don't have to worry about being left in the lurch if the business goes under.

ygjb 12y ago
Why? If there weren't enough customers to support the business model with the way he was approaching it, then there isn't enough business to sustain it. If one of his customers is interested in the platform enough that they want access to the code to run it, they should pay him for it - either to hire the talent, or to buy the business. Some projects are created because people are passionate about them, and some are created so that people can keep the lights on. Shared source is an awful model for startups - it results in increased legal wrangling to establish ownership and licensing, it creates entanglements that could prevent or constrain growth, and it explicitly says to the startup "I don't trust you to be here soon, so I want to own part of you." The correct way for a business to eliminate a fear of a partner disappearing is to pay fair value and sign a contract so that the vendor they depend on has a reliable cash flow.
danielweber 12y ago
There's an entire industry called "source code escrow" for this problem. If someone is concerned that you'll go out of business, you can escrow your stuff, and they can continue to run it and modify it. You can probably create a proper license so they can use it internally however they want but not sell it/give it away.
nirvdrum 12y ago
I feel like I went above and beyond what was needed. I communicated clearly with my customers. I'm running all the servers right now with my own personal money so they had an extra month to get all their data. I found a company that could provide some of the same functionality and got them to offer my customers a discount. I open-sourced a lot of the code. And I didn't bother wasting their time with stuff that wouldn't work without significant effort. The fact I can't easily open-source certainly could be a topic of discussion. But I don't think I was being terribly dishonest by outsourcing large pieces of functionality to software I don't have the rights to distribute. We originally used jQuery UI and it was a constant source of headaches. We switched to ExtJS, got a much richer UI up in a weekend, had paid support for any issues, and our customers were happier with the product. It was a trade-off and I was hedging on making the company work, not making it easier to give away should the company fail.

by curun1r 12y ago

ygjb 12y ago

Why? If there weren't enough customers to support the business model with the way he was approaching it, then there isn't enough business to sustain it. If one of his customers is interested in the platform enough that they want access to the code to run it, they should pay him for it - either to hire the talent, or to buy the business. Some projects are created because people are passionate about them, and some are created so that people can keep the lights on. Shared source is an awful model for startups - it results in increased legal wrangling to establish ownership and licensing, it creates entanglements that could prevent or constrain growth, and it explicitly says to the startup "I don't trust you to be here soon, so I want to own part of you." The correct way for a business to eliminate a fear of a partner disappearing is to pay fair value and sign a contract so that the vendor they depend on has a reliable cash flow.

danielweber 12y ago

There's an entire industry called "source code escrow" for this problem. If someone is concerned that you'll go out of business, you can escrow your stuff, and they can continue to run it and modify it. You can probably create a proper license so they can use it internally however they want but not sell it/give it away.

nirvdrum 12y ago

I feel like I went above and beyond what was needed. I communicated clearly with my customers. I'm running all the servers right now with my own personal money so they had an extra month to get all their data. I found a company that could provide some of the same functionality and got them to offer my customers a discount. I open-sourced a lot of the code. And I didn't bother wasting their time with stuff that wouldn't work without significant effort. The fact I can't easily open-source certainly could be a topic of discussion. But I don't think I was being terribly dishonest by outsourcing large pieces of functionality to software I don't have the rights to distribute. We originally used jQuery UI and it was a constant source of headaches. We switched to ExtJS, got a much richer UI up in a weekend, had paid support for any issues, and our customers were happier with the product. It was a trade-off and I was hedging on making the company work, not making it easier to give away should the company fail.