Slashdot Mirror
How Can We Fix The Broken Economics of Open Source? (medium.com)
"The economics of Open Source software are fundamentally broken," argues Matt Klein, a senior software engineer at Lyft (who created Envoy). Here's a heavily-condensed version of his essay on Medium:
If we take consulting, services, and support off the table as an option for high-growth revenue generation (the only thing VCs care about), we are left with open core [with some subset of features behind a paywall], software as a service, or some blurring of the two... Everyone wants infrastructure software to be free and continuously developed by highly skilled professional developers (who in turn expect to make substantial salaries), but no one wants to pay for it. The economics of this situation are unsustainable and broken...
[W]e now come to what I have recently called "loose" open core and SaaS. In the future, I believe the most successful OSS projects will be primarily monetized via this method. What is it? The idea behind "loose" open core and SaaS is that a popular OSS project can be developed as a completely community driven project (this avoids the conflicts of interest inherent in "pure" open core), while value added proprietary services and software can be sold in an ecosystem that forms around the OSS...
Unfortunately, there is an inflection point at which in some sense an OSS project becomes too popular for its own good, and outgrows its ability to generate enough revenue via either "pure" open core or services and support... [B]uilding a vibrant community and then enabling an ecosystem of "loose" open core and SaaS businesses on top appears to me to be the only viable path forward for modern VC-backed OSS startups.
Klein also suggests OSS foundations start providing fellowships to key maintainers, who currently "operate under an almost feudal system of patronage, hopping from company to company, trying to earn a living, keep the community vibrant, and all the while stay impartial..."
"[A]s an industry, we are going to have to come to terms with the economic reality: nothing is free, including OSS. If we want vibrant OSS projects maintained by engineers that are well compensated and not conflicted, we are going to have to decide that this is something worth paying for. In my opinion, fellowships provided by OSS foundations and funded by companies generating revenue off of the OSS is a great way to start down this path."
[W]e now come to what I have recently called "loose" open core and SaaS. In the future, I believe the most successful OSS projects will be primarily monetized via this method. What is it? The idea behind "loose" open core and SaaS is that a popular OSS project can be developed as a completely community driven project (this avoids the conflicts of interest inherent in "pure" open core), while value added proprietary services and software can be sold in an ecosystem that forms around the OSS...
Unfortunately, there is an inflection point at which in some sense an OSS project becomes too popular for its own good, and outgrows its ability to generate enough revenue via either "pure" open core or services and support... [B]uilding a vibrant community and then enabling an ecosystem of "loose" open core and SaaS businesses on top appears to me to be the only viable path forward for modern VC-backed OSS startups.
Klein also suggests OSS foundations start providing fellowships to key maintainers, who currently "operate under an almost feudal system of patronage, hopping from company to company, trying to earn a living, keep the community vibrant, and all the while stay impartial..."
"[A]s an industry, we are going to have to come to terms with the economic reality: nothing is free, including OSS. If we want vibrant OSS projects maintained by engineers that are well compensated and not conflicted, we are going to have to decide that this is something worth paying for. In my opinion, fellowships provided by OSS foundations and funded by companies generating revenue off of the OSS is a great way to start down this path."
Just because people can build the software from source if they want to doesn't mean you can't get them to pay you for it.
That requires both a buyer and seller. FOSS is free.
http://saveie6.com/
The point of working on something for free is the work, not some sly method of monetizing something that is labeled "free."
Might as well write an article about how soup kitchen volunteers can sinergize to maximal returns with Soup as a Service open core pricing.
Trash writing from a human being with trash ethics.
There is nothing wrong with how open source works, it works fine. The problem is what some people want from open source.
Everyone wants infrastructure software to be free and continuously developed by highly skilled professional developers (who in turn expect to make substantial salaries), but no one wants to pay for it.
Here's the conflict, people want something for nothing and that can work out sometimes but it means you are at the mercy of people you have no control over. That said, since it is open, you can hire people that you have control over to contribute to the code. The fact that few chose to do this demonstrates a failure in leadership rather than a failure in open source.
TL;DR: you dumbass MBAs are shortsighted nitwits who deserve to bear the responsibility for every security breach that happens under your blind-leading-the-sighted leadership.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I generally stop reading if the opening argument starts by stacking the deck:
"but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?"
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
>>If we take consulting, services, and support off the table as an option for high-growth revenue generation (the only thing VCs care about)
As if high growth, and the concentration of wealth to those that drive it, were worthwhile goals for all human endeavours.