Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Can Closed Source Software Transition To the GPL Successfully?
colinneagle writes "Open Source guy Bryan Lunduke has experienced the difficulties of migrating a successful closed source project to an open license first-hand, but still believes — or at least wants to believe — that it can be done. He writes: 'Occasionally, someone makes a go of it, to take a good piece of closed source software and release the source code under a nice, open license. In fact, I did just that about a year ago. I tried to take a software development tool (along with some video games) that I had developed (and was earning a good living from) and migrate them to the GPL with continued development funded via donations. The results were...disastrous. Within a very short period of time of going Open Source, the total funding for the projects fell to less than 20% of what was being brought in via sales when the software was Closed Source, which almost completely impeded the ability to fund continued development. Luckily, I was able to recover and get things back on track, but it was definitely not a fun experience.'" How viable is migrating a closed source project to something open?
OpenOffice started as StarOffice. Seems pretty viable.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
But is there a good, reliable way to fund this sort of transition? To allow a company (however large or small) to stay in business while transitioning to an Open Source license?
This article is asking the wrong questions. The question should be: what are the appropriate scenarios to move a closed source license to the GPL?
Because his scenario doesn't sound like one of those cases. If your sole source of income is taking something you've written that you consider a finished product worthy of sales and selling licenses to it then the GPL route for that entire product is most likely not for you. Now, if you can extract a framework from these games/tools that you feel could be improved by the open source community but your specific work (like textures and dialogue for the games or complex/efficient algorithms for the tool) where you feel your worth is demonstrated remains proprietary, then you can open source those frameworks and benefit from community improvements.
When I write software, it belongs to the person that bought it from me. They are the sole copyright or whatever holders of that code. Only once has a customer open sourced it and several times it's just been shelved even though I've told them that open sourcing it couldn't possibly hurt anything. I don't do a licensing model for my income, I do a "Software as a Service" model. You pay me, you get what I write. I'm like a drug dealer except the first time is still expensive. I know you'll come back for more, everyone always does! Now if ten years down the road you're looking at my code and it's outdated or missing features and I died in that majestic fireworks in space accident then just open source it and see what happens.
Projects that don't start natively as open source rarely transition well to the GPL in my opinion but when they do, they're not a cash cow based on a licensing model sold as a solitary piece of software. I'm a huge fan of the GPL but you had to have seen that one coming a mile away, right? There are scenarios for open sourcing a closed source project. You've got mouths to feed, this isn't one of them. And once it's GPL'd you better start offering your services to augment that software and go back to working your ass off because I don't know how you're going to get licensing revenue again.
My work here is dung.
I read the question and though, "What? How can it be hard not to succeed? You just switch the license." Then I read the summary and realized the real question was "Can closed source software transition to the gpl profitably?" That is a question I understand a lot better.
I don't know a clear answer. I do know that donations for that kind of product are not too likely to be a good way to bring in income.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Surely, if your business model relies on selling copies of your software, then going GPL is not going to work. What was he expecting?
Open source is a nice idea... But if you put yourself in the shoes of the consumer, you're likely to download the source, compile it, and leave the donating to the other end users who you're sure are contributing... Obviously everyone thinks like this, so very few actually donate. As far as viability goes, as long as you don't intend to continue making a living on your work. Go for it.
Common Sense (+1)
I was heavily involved in this on a github project last year. The concept is good, especially if you have enough of the source with clear copyright to put it under a GPL or change license gracefully. But the transition was really painful because all the weird, internal, badly done source control and essentially randomized selection of Perl components came home to roost, and were so embarrassing and so unstable in a more open environment that it was very difficult to get things re-integrated well. Basically, if you don't *tell* anyone you're running Apache 1.3 and storing SSH keys unencrypted on every system you touch, not that many of us will notice besides the crackers until it's far, far, far too late.
The cleanup was destabilizing and, frankly, cost me my job. But the project is far more secure and on track for safe deployment worldwide now, so I don't feel bad about that.
1. Last May, this guy announced he would GPL his stuff once he gets $4,000 in monthly donations.
2. Eight days later, he received a total of $4,000 in one-time donations and released his code under the GPL.
3. About a month later, he discovered that one-time donations and recurring donations are not the same thing.
4. Apparently until today, he is whining around how bad this all is and that open source is evil.
OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
HTH
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
From TFS of all places: " In fact, I did just that about a year ago."
But then TFS then goes on to say that he almost went broke doing it and we find out that the real (but implied question) is actually "How can I get people to donate to my pet project?"
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I've done it myself (with the original version of OpenToken). It worked out great for everyone. The community got a great tool, and the company got accellerated development and code excercise out of a tool they were previously using in-house. Everyone was a winner.
However, that doesn't appear to be what he's asking. It appears that he was defining "success" as donation revenue being higher than proprietary software "toll" revinue, in particular for a game. That's a totally different question, and has almost nothing to do with Open Source licensing. Proprietary "freeware" games face exactly this issue, so the sensible thing to do is look at how they work. I'm not an expert on this model, but I understand they generally have a very low donation rate. So if you want to may it pay better, it would have to be something that will gain way more users as freeware than would have bought it as a traditional "toll booth" model game. Here's an SE question on this exact subject (warning, the answers aren't encouraging).
Most folks making money in OpenSource software that I'm aware of do it by selling services associated with the OpenSource software. For instance, that's how Red Hat makes money off of cywgin, and how AdaCore makes money off of the gnu Ada compiler (Gnat). I'm unaware of anybody doing that with OpenSource games. Possibilites in that space that come to mind are taking donations for feature additions (top grossing feature gets coded next!), or hosting ads on the game server.
You have to go on tour, and charge for live performances of the bits you created.
When I write software for other people, I explicitly retain the rights to anything I write, unless the client pays extra.
As a contractor there's no reason to do work-for-hire. Legally it will not be considered such unless it [a] falls into a protected category, and [b] an agreement is signed saying that the work is "for hire".
And yes, the reason that I retain rights is so that I can open-source anything I please. We can have a separate discussion about the copyrights, but your words had better be writ large on a stack of banknotes.
Between open source products, SaaS, and the Internet in general, the idea of selling copies of software seems to be dying an unlamented death.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.