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."
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.
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.
Whilst all that is true, seriously why would you expect those who have infinite greed as they core motivator, to stop complaining about FOSS. They want monopolies, they want to pay bribes to government to use their proprietary software and then force end users to buy it to access government information, they want to lock down your data, they want to own the copyright on the content you create when you use their software, they want you to pay a fee again and again and again for nothing, just pay.
Closed source proprietary software is all about infinite greed, no limit to profits, total world dominance, absolute power. Come on seriously, look at the crazy way M$, Google, Apple, Facebook et al have behaved, absolutely insane psychopathic greed on full public display again and again and again. Always after they go public and the psychopaths from the major banking investors take over.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen