Slashdot Mirror


"FOSS Business Model Broken" — Former OSDL CEO

liraz writes "Stuart Cohen, former CEO of Open Source Development Labs, has written an op-ed on BusinessWeek claiming that the traditional open source business model, which relies solely on support and service revenue streams, is failing to meet the expectations of investors. He discusses the 'great paradox' of the FOSS business model, saying: 'For anyone who hasn't been paying attention to the software industry lately, I have some bad news. The open source business model is broken. Open source code is generally great code, not requiring much support. So open source companies that rely on support and service alone are not long for this world.' Cohen goes on to outline the beginnings of a business model that can work for FOSS going forward."

3 of 412 comments (clear)

  1. Solution in a mixed model? by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As far as FOSS being something that has serious business problems in regarding to sustaining the developers who work on it, this is indeed a serious problem. It generally can be very hard to raise revenue with FOSS, projects can ask for donations and sell packaged versions, but you often end up with just a trickle with these sorts of things. Programmers should obviously be able to work full time developing software. With FOSS directly competing with commercial software an eroding those markets, could it be that programmers will end up waiting tables during the day just to support the time they spend writing code? fOSS does indeed wipe out commercial software markets and it can actuall

    I am supportive of the freedom aspect of FOSS. For far too long commercial software has shut down innovation and stifled the development of improvements through cooperative development with its closed model. FOSS is on the other extreme, its an open model but it leaves programmers in a situation where they cant afford to live. Perhaps a solution for some projects lies in the middle, with a commercial source tiered licence system, where the source code is provided with all licences, the developers are receptive to improvements from customers, and the cost of software is set according to the ability of the customer to pay, a hobbyist who is using the software for fun would pay far less than someone using it in a high revenue business. This assures that the software does have a high degree of openness and accessibility to all, but also assures revenue can be raised to develop the software.

  2. Don't give it away for free by timmarhy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One thing i think we will see FOSS project's movng away from is giving away the software. if you GPL something, it doesn't mean you have to give it away, it just means who ever you sell it to gets the source code along with the program.I could for example write some software, sell it to others and then give them access to the source where only paid customers could make commits and see the source. source is only required if you distribute something....

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  3. Re:Well, duh by micheas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Do know that it is generally estimated that less than 20% of programmers work for software companies?

    Lots of companies have in house programmers. I have even seen cities with "hiring freezes" post ads for programmers and sys admins.

    Every estimate I have seen for the failure rate for computer projects is 80% or higher.

    More or less everything with computers has been a disaster.

    Bespoke solutions, off the shelf solutions, a combination of the two, you name it, your work will be harder and the money spent will never be recovered. (at least that is the way to bet.)

    Of course we see the relatively rare successes and assume that the massive carnage was just the unenlightened fools that didn't know what they were doing.