Slashdot Mirror
Earning Money with Open Source Software?
An anonymous reader writes
"I've been working on a financial application which I've decided to release to the public. I want to make some money from the application, though I certainly don't expect to become a millionaire. The problem is that I'd like nothing better than to open-source it. There are many aspects of the application that I don't have time to refine, and other developers could definitely improve upon my work. However, I don't know how I earn money from something once I've made it open source. How have you dealt with trying to turn a reasonable profit on your work while remaining open-sourced?"
FSF view on selling software
Also: Software as a service
Finally, there is also consultancy for your own project. You need help installing it? You want a feature? Hand over the cash!
No, I haven't done it. Mainly because I'd rather not be my own boss. The payoff is high, but so are the risks. I'd rather be a wage-slave and let my boss bear the risks.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
I think that OSS doesn't make money as software for an individual, but it allows him or her to increase his or her visibility.
This is not a signature.
Learn from the ones that have succeeded, such as mysql or zend.
I'd suggest you start a company, as you are more likely to be taken seriously by possible clients. And become 'the' company to go for support, customization, etc.
There must be products who have succeeded as a one man show but honestly I can't think of any.
Also, drop the 'I don't have time to refine' attitude. If you want to make money, you have time to do whatever your clients require, unless you just feel it's wrong for your product and refuse to do it altogether.
In short, if you really want to make money, your priorities have to be the ones of your clients', unless you are confident that what you feel like doing today is what someone else will feel like buying tomorrow.
By the way, is anyone using it already?
I want to make some money from the application, though I
certainly don't expect to become a millionaire. The problem is that
I'd like nothing better than to open-source it. There are many
aspects of the application that I don't have time to refine, and
other developers could definitely improve upon my work.
Wow, blatant self-contradiction within three sentences! If the application
makes you money, then by definition, you can afford some time to work on it.
I'm the author of LiarLiar, an open source Voice Stress detector. Over the years, I've had several offers from various individuals and companies to further develop or improve upon the software. If you develop software that has enough demand, you may be able to offer support services for your software. Don't expect to get rich, or even be able to make a living for that matter.
The most important thing to keep in mind is, make sure you have a backup source of income. Either a job or something else, as it is unlikely that you will be able to make enough supporting an open source project, unless it becomes very popular.
This just causes one problem. What if another developer chooses to improve the open-source version, then you can not use that improvement in your closed-source version as the developer has the copyright over the improvement code.
And what if it was a bug-fix and not an improvement, would you then have to keep the bug in the closed-source version?
This is actually exactly what I was going to suggest. People running Linux are often either programmers themselves or interested in free/open source software. People running Mac OS and Windows, however, are obviously willing to trade money for the convenience of a point-and-click installer.
There's another option depending on how well you've defined a core/UI split--open-source the core engine, but charge for the GUI (or possibly for a web interface).
There are three core reasons to open-source -
* to solicit improvements (see Linux)
* to facilitate adoption (through implementation transparency, see OpenVPN and TrueCrypt)
* for personal reasons (to brag or to support political agenda, see libevent or IO language)
These can be mixed and matched, but it typically helps to understand WHY you are open-sourcing. That's a first step.
Second step, if you want to make some $, is determining (funny enough) your business model. You can make money off the open-source either via the support or via dual-licensing.
Support model does not really scale, because in order to earn twice the money, you have put a double effort. It is also more of a sales task, which you may or may not have an inclination or an ability to so.
Dual-licensing *is* a way to go, but it implies that the code is non-trivial, solid and mature. Otherwise it does not make any sense for a 3rf party to become dependent on something that's not quite ready with an uncertain future. This automatically implies that you should not be open-sourcing the code that needs work.
Keep in mind that it's often possible to find someone willing to purchase the project as is from you. Depending on the arrangement you may also retain a right to influence further development of the product and/or land a mid-term contract gig.
2c
3.243F6A8885A308D313
However, charge for the Windows binaries/installer. Most Windows users will pay $20 rather than have to figure out how to compile it. If they do compile it anyway then their time is worth less than $20 so they could not have afforded it anyway.
.EXE for free?
Some people might still buy it from him since it is the 'official EXE', but many of them would just get the free EXE.
But won't someone just compile it and then give the
Or is it at the point where it's essentially a "nice idea" that's been taken to about typical shareware quality? Something that's not even close to standing on its own as a traditional boxed product, revenue generator without a lot more development work put in by a lot more people?... People that the goal is to get for free from the Open Source movement rather than actually hire?
Back during the dotcom days, I'd get approached daily by someone new from sales or marketting within the large multi-national I was at. They heard I was a good coder and they wanted to know if I'd be willing to join their start up as the lead coder.
I'd check their business model. They always planned the same thing: Who's paying for this? "We'll get VC interest." OK, what idea do you have? "We'll find someone with a cool idea and fund it with that VC money." So you're planning on getting VCs to fund you, to do the VCs' job, with you then taking the millions dotcoms are supposed to make their owners? I don't see this working. At that point, I always politely declined.
Just as I questioned their entitlement to make money and, on a less manipulative level, their simply having deluded themselves... I'd question anyone who doesn't really have a fully featured product, that's not at a point where it can make money on its own, without needing Open Source devs to take it to the next level for them - work they won't pay for because it's "open source" but they'd still like a reasonable profit from for themselves.
The trick is to get paid, or enter a contract to be paid, before you do the work. People need some functionality, and you write it for a price. As a byproduct, you release the code as free software. It gets easier over time, as you and your code gains reputation.
I have made a living that way for the last 12 years.
It is a change of mindset, you get paid for your work, not for your code, just like if you were an ordinary wage slave. The difference is that since your code is free, you are too, you won't lose it when switching client.
won't someone just compile it and then give the .EXE for free?
Sure they will, however those willing to pay $20 will never find it. Time == Money.
My little Linux and tech blog
How would you make money with this as a purely closed source app? To make money as a closed source app, it has to have some polish and depth of functionality out of the box. You'll have to put it into it precisely what you say there isn't time or energy for. Implicit in making it a FOSS app is the hope that others will supply some of that time or energy but you have to trade off at least some of the personal exclusivity you could enjoy if you keep it proprietary.
If you go some sort of FOSS route then is there any data this applications depends on to run. Financial apps in many domains have to be aware of tax rates or some sort of other specific data that has to be compiled for it to be useful. Compiling that data and keeping it current is at least as big a job as writing the code. If your app is in that category, then I suggest opening the code and charging for the domain specific data it needs to be useful.
There is nothing preventing him from giving customers the source under different licensing options.
I have a client who was on the receiving end of this for a collaboration and time tracking software suit. It ended up costing them about 10 times the normal software costs and they had to allow audits of any software that they resold but this company didn't sell software. They needed the source to develop integration with other software that was made for them years ago but were still using. In all, it worked out pretty good but it was expensive and the license doesn't allow them to use the code in commercial applications they create, only in the context of getting the original software to work with the applications.
I have a feeling though, this brush with open source is because there are elements he thinks others could improve better then he could. Not as much as wanting the client to have the code or anyone else to have the ability to use it. I think going with an open source on part of the code and asking for rights assignments from contributors that would allow use with propriatary applications could work. In that situation, he could have a separately named product with professional support and documentation and an open source project of the same things the might not be as polished as the real deal.
I was surprised to see how much polish and refinements are on some of the Pay versions of Open source software. It almost does the Pay version injustice having the free and open version associated with them. I mean consider red hat's renaming which got around this little issue. Now instead of Redhat enterprise linux and red hat linux, you have Fedora which in name separates bugs and nuances and stuff from the RHEL software. It allows the professional versions to be sold without the negatives of people not knowing what they are doing and blaming something that shouldn't be blamed or talking down the pay offerings based on their experience with the often bleeding edge free offerings.