3 ms·

Is it possible to make money from open source?

17 points by dreemteem 17y ago

richardw 17y ago
It is possible, but it takes some serious thinking. A couple approaches: 1) Support an open source project because it reduces the competition's advantages. E.g. IBM supporting Linux to reduce MS' advantages. If you're a startup looking to fight somebody big, you can use OSS as a tactic to level the playing field somewhat. 2) Break up your offering into proprietary and open parts. The former should align with your (hopefully unique) strengths, or maybe legally protected methods, the latter should be code that compliments it but is not strategically important. The open source aspect gets you attention, users and hopefully code contributions. The proprietary aspect you sell to customers who are happy to pay for e.g. convenience, speed, quality, user interface, attention to detail. An example is Apple supporting various non-core open source projects, like Webkit or FreeBSD, that they build on top of.
woid 17y ago
Working pretty hard on my open-source projects at http://binaryage.com http://binaryage.com. Until today I've got $12 in contributions via addons.mozilla.com :-) But I'm optimistic I hope someday I will be able to do it full time and possibly make living from it. But it seems I have a long journey ahead, for the meantime I had to stick with freelance/client work ... Any ideas what should I focus at highly appreciated! Your experience may help me move faster. Thanks.
- revorad 17y ago
  Wow, you seem to be building a lot of cool things. Why don't you sell your software? It can still be open source, but why not ask people to pay for it?
- WA 17y ago
  Beautiful webpage you've got there :) What might work for open-source: 1. Once you have a couple users, announce new features that are requested by a lot of your users and tell them:"It takes me X hours to work on that, once I got donations worth Y $, I start developing that feature". 2. Distribute two builds: One build with new features that is commercial and another (older) build that is open-source, but doesn't have the newest features. The open-source build could be somewhat like 6-12 months behind the commercial release.
  - tjr 17y ago
    Or possibly don't offer an open source build at all. If someone wants an executable, they pay for a distribution of it, while they can get the source code for free. This opens the door to the possibility of someone else making builds and distributing them for free (legally), but there may be something to be said for you being the original source of the software, rather than a third-party. If you can market your website as the place to get the software, maybe enough people won't bother looking for other sources anyway. EDIT: ...depending on who your market is, of course. If I found a website distributing software as described, I would first look for a free build of it somewhere else, figuring that it probably exists. Failing that, I would probably download the source code and spend a small amount of time trying to make it build. If I can get it built in short order, then great. If not, then I'd probably buy the "official" build, depending on the cost and how much I want the software. (It might be more cost efficient for me to keep trying to get the build to work, vs. pay a high distribution fee.) But I am not the average computer user. Neither are most people who read this website. Most computer users have little or no concept of what open source is, no capacity for building software from source, and, I suspect, less savvy when it comes to finding a build from a third party. So if your software's target userbase is not computer nerds, then charging a distribution fee for a build may be more feasible... and not unjust, either, as you are truly providing a service to such people, compared to just offering source code, anyway, which, in theory they could learn how to build, or could pay another programmer to build for them.
- woid 17y ago
  thank you for ideas. 1. I don't really think pledge-type would work for me. Tried once on microPledge and it has zero feedback. 2. Keeping separate open-souce version behind commercial few months sound interesting, but it would make managing my projects harder. I guess I need to keep things simple. 3. My target audience is developers. Providing just builds as a commercial service is nothing most of them would pay for. I'm thinking I would probably do simplest thing possible. I'll offer future product as closed-source and stick a price on it. Say TotalFinder .-)
ZeroGravitas 17y ago
The answer to that question is "yes", but that's not the question they ask in the column. They continually ask about how to sell software after making it open source, which is (or at least should be) stupid by definition, but some people are too steeped in the old ways to understand how crazy that sounds and start asking the real question: "If it won't let me make money by selling software, then how will it let me make money?" Who was it that said the easiest way to make money from open source is to use it? (One of the MySQL guys I think) PS why is there " a session entitled, "Is Open Source Old News?" at the Microsoft PDC (Professional Developers Conference)" The mixed messages on Open Source from Microsoft continue.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  "PS why is there " a session entitled, "Is Open Source Old News?" at the Microsoft PDC (Professional Developers Conference)" The mixed messages on Open Source from Microsoft continue." Is this a rhetorical question?
patio11 17y ago
I got paid to work on OSS (OpenId4Java) this month by the day job. OSS largely makes my closed source application possible, since the majority of my toolchain is OSS and leveraging it makes it possible for me to develop new features much, much faster than I could myself. In terms of actually making money through writing OSS, I've gotten significant returns out of writing A/Bingo. Mostly that has been through direct use of the program, but it has also been one of my best strategies ever for getting links, and I suppose if I wanted to do consulting the trickle of people saying "Would you be interested in consulting on ...?" would have value, too. P.S: From the article: "Support, by the way, is a horrible business." Ye gods, yes. Who wants to get into this, honestly?
pchristensen 17y ago
I always found this to be a silly question - RedHat, MySQL and others have proven this. The meaningful question is "How can you make an acceptable amount from open source to make it worth the opportunity cost of not selling software?"
c00p3r 17y ago
What would you expect from microsoft-backed tabloid? Of course, they never heard about Redhat or MySQL (before they were brought by Sun).
dasil003 17y ago
This article seems to stem from the ridiculous premise that the open source question is whether a software company should take their core product and simply open source it. It's no wonder a lot of software companies balk at the thought. It's ridiculous. The issue of open source is about value, not cash. With open source a lot more value is created because more users and more developers means better quality. This extra value can translate into a winning scenario for a software company open sourcing some of their components, because they get more robust software essentially for free. The trick is to release components that have broad use cases, ie. the stuff that's ripe for commodification anyway. Thinking that stuff gives you a competitive advantage is fool-hardy because by definition, there are always going to be more developers outside your organization than in it, so anything that's broadly useful is going to be done better by open source than your company will be able to manage, so why not proactively take control of the situation and build your own open source community. But there's no value in releasing your own secret sauce. Companies like Google and Facebook inherently understand that which is why they release things like GWT and Cassandra without a second thought. Yes it's serious software that contributes to their competitive advantage, but it doesn't give anybody a jump start on eating their lunch.

17 points by dreemteem 17y ago

It is possible, but it takes some serious thinking. A couple approaches: 1) Support an open source project because it reduces the competition's advantages. E.g. IBM supporting Linux to reduce MS' advantages. If you're a startup looking to fight somebody big, you can use OSS as a tactic to level the playing field somewhat. 2) Break up your offering into proprietary and open parts. The former should align with your (hopefully unique) strengths, or maybe legally protected methods, the latter should be code that compliments it but is not strategically important. The open source aspect gets you attention, users and hopefully code contributions. The proprietary aspect you sell to customers who are happy to pay for e.g. convenience, speed, quality, user interface, attention to detail. An example is Apple supporting various non-core open source projects, like Webkit or FreeBSD, that they build on top of.

woid 17y ago

Working pretty hard on my open-source projects at http://binaryage.com http://binaryage.com. Until today I've got $12 in contributions via addons.mozilla.com :-) But I'm optimistic I hope someday I will be able to do it full time and possibly make living from it. But it seems I have a long journey ahead, for the meantime I had to stick with freelance/client work ... Any ideas what should I focus at highly appreciated! Your experience may help me move faster. Thanks.

revorad 17y ago
Wow, you seem to be building a lot of cool things. Why don't you sell your software? It can still be open source, but why not ask people to pay for it?
WA 17y ago
Beautiful webpage you've got there :) What might work for open-source: 1. Once you have a couple users, announce new features that are requested by a lot of your users and tell them:"It takes me X hours to work on that, once I got donations worth Y $, I start developing that feature". 2. Distribute two builds: One build with new features that is commercial and another (older) build that is open-source, but doesn't have the newest features. The open-source build could be somewhat like 6-12 months behind the commercial release.
- tjr 17y ago
  Or possibly don't offer an open source build at all. If someone wants an executable, they pay for a distribution of it, while they can get the source code for free. This opens the door to the possibility of someone else making builds and distributing them for free (legally), but there may be something to be said for you being the original source of the software, rather than a third-party. If you can market your website as the place to get the software, maybe enough people won't bother looking for other sources anyway. EDIT: ...depending on who your market is, of course. If I found a website distributing software as described, I would first look for a free build of it somewhere else, figuring that it probably exists. Failing that, I would probably download the source code and spend a small amount of time trying to make it build. If I can get it built in short order, then great. If not, then I'd probably buy the "official" build, depending on the cost and how much I want the software. (It might be more cost efficient for me to keep trying to get the build to work, vs. pay a high distribution fee.) But I am not the average computer user. Neither are most people who read this website. Most computer users have little or no concept of what open source is, no capacity for building software from source, and, I suspect, less savvy when it comes to finding a build from a third party. So if your software's target userbase is not computer nerds, then charging a distribution fee for a build may be more feasible... and not unjust, either, as you are truly providing a service to such people, compared to just offering source code, anyway, which, in theory they could learn how to build, or could pay another programmer to build for them.
woid 17y ago
thank you for ideas. 1. I don't really think pledge-type would work for me. Tried once on microPledge and it has zero feedback. 2. Keeping separate open-souce version behind commercial few months sound interesting, but it would make managing my projects harder. I guess I need to keep things simple. 3. My target audience is developers. Providing just builds as a commercial service is nothing most of them would pay for. I'm thinking I would probably do simplest thing possible. I'll offer future product as closed-source and stick a price on it. Say TotalFinder .-)

ZeroGravitas 17y ago

The answer to that question is "yes", but that's not the question they ask in the column. They continually ask about how to sell software after making it open source, which is (or at least should be) stupid by definition, but some people are too steeped in the old ways to understand how crazy that sounds and start asking the real question: "If it won't let me make money by selling software, then how will it let me make money?" Who was it that said the easiest way to make money from open source is to use it? (One of the MySQL guys I think) PS why is there " a session entitled, "Is Open Source Old News?" at the Microsoft PDC (Professional Developers Conference)" The mixed messages on Open Source from Microsoft continue.

rbanffy 17y ago
"PS why is there " a session entitled, "Is Open Source Old News?" at the Microsoft PDC (Professional Developers Conference)" The mixed messages on Open Source from Microsoft continue." Is this a rhetorical question?

patio11 17y ago

I got paid to work on OSS (OpenId4Java) this month by the day job. OSS largely makes my closed source application possible, since the majority of my toolchain is OSS and leveraging it makes it possible for me to develop new features much, much faster than I could myself. In terms of actually making money through writing OSS, I've gotten significant returns out of writing A/Bingo. Mostly that has been through direct use of the program, but it has also been one of my best strategies ever for getting links, and I suppose if I wanted to do consulting the trickle of people saying "Would you be interested in consulting on ...?" would have value, too. P.S: From the article: "Support, by the way, is a horrible business." Ye gods, yes. Who wants to get into this, honestly?

pchristensen 17y ago

I always found this to be a silly question - RedHat, MySQL and others have proven this. The meaningful question is "How can you make an acceptable amount from open source to make it worth the opportunity cost of not selling software?"

c00p3r 17y ago

What would you expect from microsoft-backed tabloid? Of course, they never heard about Redhat or MySQL (before they were brought by Sun).

dasil003 17y ago

This article seems to stem from the ridiculous premise that the open source question is whether a software company should take their core product and simply open source it. It's no wonder a lot of software companies balk at the thought. It's ridiculous. The issue of open source is about value, not cash. With open source a lot more value is created because more users and more developers means better quality. This extra value can translate into a winning scenario for a software company open sourcing some of their components, because they get more robust software essentially for free. The trick is to release components that have broad use cases, ie. the stuff that's ripe for commodification anyway. Thinking that stuff gives you a competitive advantage is fool-hardy because by definition, there are always going to be more developers outside your organization than in it, so anything that's broadly useful is going to be done better by open source than your company will be able to manage, so why not proactively take control of the situation and build your own open source community. But there's no value in releasing your own secret sauce. Companies like Google and Facebook inherently understand that which is why they release things like GWT and Cassandra without a second thought. Yes it's serious software that contributes to their competitive advantage, but it doesn't give anybody a jump start on eating their lunch.