Business users should absolutely be funding the work for infrastructure. OSS does not provide a sustainable business model, and businesses make an enormous amount off of using stuff like this.
I really admire the model Epic Games has taken with Unreal Engine. It’s become practically-but-not-quite an open source project. Free to get started with, use, and modify unless you start making serious money with it, then those who can afford to must pony up to support the development. This also helps them reach an audience of beginning and amateur developers who learn and go on to work with the engine professionally. I wonder how well something similar would work in other industries.
Yes, I think we’re starting to see the emergence of really great business models around this.
I can see this extending to other areas, such as frameworks, languages, even perhaps libraries: once you become viable, then you pony up. And you should get more clout in directing feature development, too.
I didn’t read it that way. I was seeing it as an extra test-suite for specific, use-cases whose legal status varies. It was funny to me in a different way because it implied, “We’re better at testing software than you. Just look at our testing page. Then, look at your shoddy, bored, QA team. Then, make the right decision to give us money to do it for you.”
I struggle to balance my OS code and commercial code too. But at the end of the day, if X writes the code, X has the right to license it however they want.
I’ve done a few posts on trying to bring OSS benefits into paid licenses. Here’s a recent one in response to same story on HN. Read it and my response to the commenter to get a better picture of how I’m thinking about it.
So, what’s peoples thoughts on this model in terms of how close it gets to OSS benefits while keeping cash flow to support development, sales, support, and patent defense?
Business users should absolutely be funding the work for infrastructure. OSS does not provide a sustainable business model, and businesses make an enormous amount off of using stuff like this.
There’s no uproar here.
I really admire the model Epic Games has taken with Unreal Engine. It’s become practically-but-not-quite an open source project. Free to get started with, use, and modify unless you start making serious money with it, then those who can afford to must pony up to support the development. This also helps them reach an audience of beginning and amateur developers who learn and go on to work with the engine professionally. I wonder how well something similar would work in other industries.
Yes, I think we’re starting to see the emergence of really great business models around this.
I can see this extending to other areas, such as frameworks, languages, even perhaps libraries: once you become viable, then you pony up. And you should get more clout in directing feature development, too.
That’s just baby-ducking users. Getting young users to sponge up your software and then cashing in later.
It’s no different than microsoft words student edition.
Some of the best open source projects have some sort of monetization attached to them.
So many different approaches:
Interesting to see all the different approaches. Anybody know more good examples?
There is the SQLite approach: https://www.sqlite.org/consortium.html
That one’s particularly hilarious and perceptive of how enterprise needs differ from everyone else’s. An open-source project with a secret test suite!
I didn’t read it that way. I was seeing it as an extra test-suite for specific, use-cases whose legal status varies. It was funny to me in a different way because it implied, “We’re better at testing software than you. Just look at our testing page. Then, look at your shoddy, bored, QA team. Then, make the right decision to give us money to do it for you.”
coughs http://sidekiq.org
I struggle to balance my OS code and commercial code too. But at the end of the day, if X writes the code, X has the right to license it however they want.
I’ve done a few posts on trying to bring OSS benefits into paid licenses. Here’s a recent one in response to same story on HN. Read it and my response to the commenter to get a better picture of how I’m thinking about it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12327283
So, what’s peoples thoughts on this model in terms of how close it gets to OSS benefits while keeping cash flow to support development, sales, support, and patent defense?