3 ms·

I would say that open source code base cannot be profitable in principle (and it should be completely open, like the Linux kernel, with all the new "hot" featur

I would say that open source code base cannot be profitable in principle (and it should be completely open, like the Linux kernel, with all the new "hot" features development) but the services, you as a developer provide, could. Or let's say that one's knowledge and skills are profitable, not the code itself. The code should be open, so it could grow on the same pace as everything else grows, according to the real demand for features, like early FreeBSD or Linux or even MySQL grew, or even nginx before 1.0.

IgorPartola 11y ago
Well, I think an OSS piece of software can be profitable if you can run it as a service. For example, WordPress (wordpress.com sells subscriptions), or Sentry (getsentry.com). Sure you can run your own, but why not pay someone to take care of that headache? However, I am looking specifically at nginx. The open version of it is too good and too complete, and by its nature it's not something you are going to run externally to your application. It's what Alan Cox (I think) described as "legacy software", meaning it's a fundamental part of your infrastructure that you expect to just sit there and work.
- dschiptsov 11y ago
  There is not a single complain about the quality of the nginx and its place as a "core service", on the contrary, it is a rare example of careful craftsmanship (Igor's code), a gold standard, if you wish.) What I am trying to suggest is the simple idea that as long as the code become closed it cease to grow and become stagnant, but while it is open to everyone, like Linux kernel, and just grows and grows, it is not possible to monetize it, and the one possible working model is to develop new features sponsored by someone, like it is the case for the Linux kernel, or to sell your own services with open code, like so many do. It seems like the model acquire, close and sell does not work with open source projects, because when it does not grow it dies (stagnates), just according to the laws of big numbers. Or rather it changes its status to being a commercial product, which is completely different story (paid developers, support, QA, etc) to which very few people would contribute - no one wants to grow other people's wealth.

IgorPartola 11y ago

Well, I think an OSS piece of software can be profitable if you can run it as a service. For example, WordPress (wordpress.com sells subscriptions), or Sentry (getsentry.com). Sure you can run your own, but why not pay someone to take care of that headache? However, I am looking specifically at nginx. The open version of it is too good and too complete, and by its nature it's not something you are going to run externally to your application. It's what Alan Cox (I think) described as "legacy software", meaning it's a fundamental part of your infrastructure that you expect to just sit there and work.

dschiptsov 11y ago
There is not a single complain about the quality of the nginx and its place as a "core service", on the contrary, it is a rare example of careful craftsmanship (Igor's code), a gold standard, if you wish.) What I am trying to suggest is the simple idea that as long as the code become closed it cease to grow and become stagnant, but while it is open to everyone, like Linux kernel, and just grows and grows, it is not possible to monetize it, and the one possible working model is to develop new features sponsored by someone, like it is the case for the Linux kernel, or to sell your own services with open code, like so many do. It seems like the model acquire, close and sell does not work with open source projects, because when it does not grow it dies (stagnates), just according to the laws of big numbers. Or rather it changes its status to being a commercial product, which is completely different story (paid developers, support, QA, etc) to which very few people would contribute - no one wants to grow other people's wealth.