Slashdot Mirror
Making Money Using Open Source Software?
GamblerZG asks: "As many of us probably know, convincing people to run Free Software can sometimes be a tedious task. However, there are a lot of factors that help us in that regard, and, perhaps, the biggest of them is a simple truth: Free Software is free. It's hard to argue with such statement. I know it, because I faced it today, trying to convince my fellow co-worker that it is possible to profit by writing GNU-licensed code. 'How company can make money, if its products are available for free?' That was a valid question indeed, and I could not find any simple answers to respond with. That makes me wonder, whether there are articles on the Internet, which explain and analyze how Open Source business models work? Do you know any ways to prove that such models can be profitable?" It can be done, you can check out a recent interview with an Open Source Entrepreneur on NewsForge for some hints. What other ideas and business plans do you think would be a good match for a business with an Open Source core?
Have we finally found the Second Step?
See www.redhat.com, see www.sendmail.com, and so on and so forth. These people sell opensource product support, and make money doing it. This doesn't require paying some "analyst" $50k+ to write you a white paper on how to make money.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I am a big fan of making the source free but charging for support. This gives the user/customer so much more power. They can work on your application all they want, if they get stuck or need help, they call and pay you. You can offer initial setup and configuration. Many large companies charge quite a bit for support contracts. You can as well, with the advantage of having a lower TCO for your customers.
Just take a quick look at IBM announce today they're making 38.8 million off Open-Source-based services on a single location in the span of four years.
If that is not money, I dare not fathom what is.
HAD
Its easy to make money off of Open Source! Slashdot just posted a story on it!
You can mod your friends, you can mod your nose, but you can't mod your friend's nose.
If you use this product commercially, and feel its been of monetary value to you. Please donate a fraction of the value of the software. The value of this software is different for each person and company, please be fair. Thank you.
God spoke to me.
One thing threatening Open Source today--piracy.
As we have already seen today, the GPL is under attack from evil forces known as "pirates." These shadowy folk silently steal source code and violate the GPL, infringing on the rights of GPL authors. They are nothing more than thieves getting a free ride off the work of others, and I for one am disgusted at the idea of it. As you can see in the previous article, clearly Slashdot is also sickened by the idea of copyright infringement and piracy.
Some have even called for a lawsuit against these pirate thieves. Suing individual infringers has always been a position that Slashdot and its readership has supported, so it's only fair that the original GPL authors protect their rights and safeguard their material from being stolen in the future. I think we should all support any lawsuits against these infringers to protect the rights of GPL authors everywhere.
I appluad Slashdot and its readers for always taking a proactive stance against piracy and copyright infringement in general, and I would like to join the cause against this "source code theft." Piracy is a major threat facing OSS today.
Successful companies do not produce "products" so much as we produce "customer satisfaction". Products are necessary props in producing satisfaction, but they're not the only necessary props. Software is used to produce that satisfaction. The programmer's dream is to work only with our computer, producing that "killer app", and publishing it for the hungry masses to consumer. The reality is that customers must be sold tom if they are to pay, and that software is part of the sales process. So keeping the source closed is really sleight-of-hand, a way to protect inferior code from competition. Binary-only software is no less piratable than source code, especially with so many architectural layers that can be replaced with rebranded wrappers. Profit measures the surplus value in the *relationship* between vendor and purchaser. So open source is no different from closed source software in its role in making money. If anything, open source is advantaged in improving the relationship, and in offering more opportunities for satisfaction, as well as reducing the costs of delivering that satisfaction - hence more profit.
--
make install -not war
Simple answer: it's extremely dificult to do so.
The question you should be asking is 'How can a company make money, if it gives away software for free?', and the answer should be more obvious - it can do so if its product is not the software it's giving away.
For instance, IBM's "product" is the tailor-made services and consultancy it provides. The software is merely a tool they use to provide it.
You might argue that keeping such tools to yourself is a commercial advantage over your competitors. That's true to an extent, but there are also downsides - e.g. if you provide your own proprietary operating system instead, you don't get benefits contributed by the community, and your competitors are more attractive because there is no lock-in.
I attended a chat last night with someone who works for a very large medical device company. They talked about how important intellectual property was to them and that it is their life blood. So they patent as much as possible and lock up everything as tight they can to get a competetive advantage on the competition.
/. crowd and the fsf folks have to say as this is a lot of what I hear coming out of this company and even other tech companies. So its a huge obsticle to overcome for the open source/fs movement.
However, he also stressed "living the mission" where there mission is to essentially alievate pain, help people live longer better lives." And in his next breath he said that his company would sue anyone who copies their ideas to do remote patient check ups on pacemakers etc.
So I asked, doesn't this contradict the mission, how can you on one hand be for helping people but writing proprietary software that maximizes your revenue? Why don't you open source it all, wouldn't that be a better fulfillment of the mission? He responded by saying that it is essential that the company do this to ensure that it can be financially healthy to continue to provide these services and develop new ones.
It seemed pretty logical to me, but I want to hear what the
We've had this problem, so I'm not speaking theoretically. Most of our users bought support with the purchase of our commercial product, but after one year many of them didn't want to renew because they hadn't had any problems and didn't know what they were paying for.
A business plan that is based on support is at direct cross purposes with creating high-quality, easy-to-use software.
"GMZ: Was this always meant to be free software ? Did you ever try to "get rich" with it? Do you regret that you didn't?
LL: At the time, it never really occurred to me that people would pay money for software. I certainly didn't think that people would pay money for a book about software. Fortunately, Peter Gordon at Addison-Wesley convinced me to turn the LaTeX manual into a book. In retrospect, I think I made more money by giving the software away and selling the book than I would have by trying to sell the software. I don't think TeX and LaTeX would have become popular had they not been free. Indeed, I think most users would have been happier with Scribe. Had Scribe been free and had it continued to be supported, I suspect it would have won out over TeX. On the other hand, I think it would have been supplanted more quickly by Word than TeX has been." (From TUGboat 22 (2001)
Just a very succesful case of money made out of free/open source software that is often overlooked (and maybe one of the oldest cases as well!)