How Can We Fix The Broken Economics of Open Source?

'"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."'

Rest of post

LOL, this is pretty funny coming from somebody working for Lyft - a
ride-share model predicated on offloading all the risk and expenses onto
drivers in a highly precarious labor model while extracting profits from
their work. Their competitor Uber has been compared to a cash burning
machine and has burnt through millions since its inception. Moreover, their
turnover rate - drivers still working after the first year - is estimated
at between 50% (from their own commissioned study a few years back) up to
90% from a more recent study. And this 'sharing economy' model itself
located in a broader business model of the startup, which rapidly churns
through capital and employees, hoping to monetize or get bought out before
burn out, bankruptcy and collapse.

I have no doubt that FOSS has its own economic problems. But the Silicon
Valley environment also assumes a particular economic model that has now
become normalized, and we might at least recognize that open source is not
the only economy that is 'fundamentally broken'. The economics of *non*
open-source software, set in a broader environment of capital, are as
pathologic as they are productive.

best, Luke

Rest of post

On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 at 13:20, Peter Reutemann <<email obscured>> wrote:

> '"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."'
>
> -- source: https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/09/01/1939233
>
> Cheers, Peter
> --
> Peter Reutemann
> Dept. of Computer Science
> University of Waikato, NZ
> +64 (7) 858-5174
> http://www.cms.waikato.ac.nz/~fracpete/
> http://www.data-mining.co.nz/
>
> ――
> View topic http://groups.nzoss.org.nz/r/topic/1j3Q6hsDyC8FyuL7LDI4lj
> Leave group mailto:openchat@groups.nzoss.org.nz?subject=Unsubscribe
>
> Start groups https://OnlineGroups.net
>

Hi

I had similar thoughts when I read the article. This advice ("stop
doing open source if you want to earn a living") has been given to the
FOSS community at least once a year for years and is reasonably
ignorable.

It *is* a valid topic, and I', pleased to say LCA 2019 has accepted my
talk on the subject :-)

"Who pays the piper? The caller of the tune."

I'm happy to take suggestions on the direction this talk should take.

Of note, business models, open or closed, are hard. There is no
guarantee of success or failure.

Cheers

Rest of post

Don

On Mon, 2018-09-03 at 15:51 +1200, Luke Munn wrote:
> LOL, this is pretty funny coming from somebody working for Lyft - a
> ride-share model predicated on offloading all the risk and expenses
> onto
> drivers in a highly precarious labor model while extracting profits
> from
> their work. Their competitor Uber has been compared to a cash burning
> machine and has burnt through millions since its inception. Moreover,
> their
> turnover rate - drivers still working after the first year - is
> estimated
> at between 50% (from their own commissioned study a few years back)
> up to
> 90% from a more recent study. And this 'sharing economy' model itself
> located in a broader business model of the startup, which rapidly
> churns
> through capital and employees, hoping to monetize or get bought out
> before
> burn out, bankruptcy and collapse.
>
> I have no doubt that FOSS has its own economic problems. But the
> Silicon
> Valley environment also assumes a particular economic model that has
> now
> become normalized, and we might at least recognize that open source
> is not
> the only economy that is 'fundamentally broken'. The economics of
> *non*
> open-source software, set in a broader environment of capital, are as
> pathologic as they are productive.
>
> best, Luke
>
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 at 13:20, Peter Reutemann <<email obscured>>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > '"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."'
> >
> > -- source: https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/09/01/1939233
> >
> > Cheers, Peter
> > --
> > Peter Reutemann
> > Dept. of Computer Science
> > University of Waikato, NZ
> > +64 (7) 858-5174
> > http://www.cms.waikato.ac.nz/~fracpete/
> > http://www.data-mining.co.nz/
> >
> > ――
> > View topic http://groups.nzoss.org.nz/r/topic/1j3Q6hsDyC8FyuL7LDI4l
> > j
> > Leave group mailto:openchat@groups.nzoss.org.nz?subject=Unsubscribe
> >
> > Start groups https://OnlineGroups.net
> >
> ――
> View topic http://groups.nzoss.org.nz/r/topic/4dBGY7kV1Hi5BHLZWpYIog
> Leave group mailto:openchat@groups.nzoss.org.nz?subject=Unsubscribe
>
> Start groups https://OnlineGroups.net
--
---------------------------------------
Donald Christie - Managing Director
Catalyst IT Limited
Level 6,150-154 Willis Street, PO Box 11-053
Wellington New Zealand
Tel:+64 4 4992267
Mob:+64 21 707814
http://catalyst.net.nz

----------------------------------------

819 bytes

The key looks like "all VPs care about". That may be so, but are there
other things to care about?
Suspect a straw man argument in there.

Rest of post

On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 4:19 PM Don Christie <<email obscured>> wrote:

> ― 1 file link ―
>
> Hi
>
> I had similar thoughts when I read the article. This advice ("stop
> doing open source if you want to earn a living") has been given to the
> FOSS community at least once a year for years and is reasonably
> ignorable.
>
> It *is* a valid topic, and I', pleased to say LCA 2019 has accepted my
> talk on the subject :-)
>
> "Who pays the piper? The caller of the tune."
>
> I'm happy to take suggestions on the direction this talk should take.
>
> Of note, business models, open or closed, are hard. There is no
> guarantee of success or failure.
>
> Cheers
> Don
>
> On Mon, 2018-09-03 at 15:51 +1200, Luke Munn wrote:
> > LOL, this is pretty funny coming from somebody working for Lyft - a
> > ride-share model predicated on offloading all the risk and expenses
> > onto
> > drivers in a highly precarious labor model while extracting profits
> > from
> > their work. Their competitor Uber has been compared to a cash burning
> > machine and has burnt through millions since its inception. Moreover,
> > their
> > turnover rate - drivers still working after the first year - is
> > estimated
> > at between 50% (from their own commissioned study a few years back)
> > up to
> > 90% from a more recent study. And this 'sharing economy' model itself
> > located in a broader business model of the startup, which rapidly
> > churns
> > through capital and employees, hoping to monetize or get bought out
> > before
> > burn out, bankruptcy and collapse.
> >
> > I have no doubt that FOSS has its own economic problems. But the
> > Silicon
> > Valley environment also assumes a particular economic model that has
> > now
> > become normalized, and we might at least recognize that open source
> > is not
> > the only economy that is 'fundamentally broken'. The economics of
> > *non*
> > open-source software, set in a broader environment of capital, are as
> > pathologic as they are productive.
> >
> > best, Luke
> >
> > On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 at 13:20, Peter Reutemann <<email obscured>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > '"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."'
> > >
> > > -- source: https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/09/01/1939233
> > >
> > > Cheers, Peter
> > > --
> > > Peter Reutemann
> > > Dept. of Computer Science
> > > University of Waikato, NZ
> > > +64 (7) 858-5174
> > > http://www.cms.waikato.ac.nz/~fracpete/
> > > http://www.data-mining.co.nz/
> > >
> > > ――
> > > View topic http://groups.nzoss.org.nz/r/topic/1j3Q6hsDyC8FyuL7LDI4l
> > > j
> > > Leave group mailto:openchat@groups.nzoss.org.nz?subject=Unsubscribe
> > >
> > > Start groups https://OnlineGroups.net
> > >
> > ――
> > View topic http://groups.nzoss.org.nz/r/topic/4dBGY7kV1Hi5BHLZWpYIog
> > Leave group mailto:openchat@groups.nzoss.org.nz?subject=Unsubscribe
> >
> > Start groups https://OnlineGroups.net
> --
> ---------------------------------------
> Donald Christie - Managing Director
> Catalyst IT Limited
> Level 6,150-154 Willis Street, PO Box 11-053
> Wellington New Zealand
> Tel:+64 4 4992267
> Mob:+64 21 707814
> http://catalyst.net.nz
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
> ― 1 file ―
>
> 📎 (819b)
>
> http://groups.nzoss.org.nz/r/file/wP8xIj8JwRF6QccIuBmJQK3lFXH-dd-2HEEhgV/
>
>
> ――
> View topic http://groups.nzoss.org.nz/r/topic/7LXO0Qk81i9qSUT1W2AtVv
> Leave group mailto:openchat@groups.nzoss.org.nz?subject=Unsubscribe
>
> Start groups https://OnlineGroups.net
>

Bit confused ... open-source is not a "business model" - it is
anarchistic doing coding for the love of it mostly. Surely no one does
open source coding for the money?

Phil

Phil Daintree
+64 (0)275 567890

On 03/09/18 16:18, Don Christie wrote:
> ― 1 file link ―
>
> Hi
>
> I had similar thoughts when I read the article. This advice ("stop
> doing open source if you want to earn a living") has been given to the
> FOSS community at least once a year for years and is reasonably
> ignorable.
>
> It *is* a valid topic, and I', pleased to say LCA 2019 has accepted my
> talk on the subject :-)
>
> "Who pays the piper? The caller of the tune."
>
> I'm happy to take suggestions on the direction this talk should take.
>
> Of note, business models, open or closed, are hard. There is no
> guarantee of success or failure.
>
> Cheers
> Don
>
> On Mon, 2018-09-03 at 15:51 +1200, Luke Munn wrote:
>> LOL, this is pretty funny coming from somebody working for Lyft - a
>> ride-share model predicated on offloading all the risk and expenses
>> onto
>> drivers in a highly precarious labor model while extracting profits
>> from
>> their work. Their competitor Uber has been compared to a cash burning
>> machine and has burnt through millions since its inception. Moreover,
>> their
>> turnover rate - drivers still working after the first year - is
>> estimated
>> at between 50% (from their own commissioned study a few years back)
>> up to
>> 90% from a more recent study. And this 'sharing economy' model itself
>> located in a broader business model of the startup, which rapidly
>> churns
>> through capital and employees, hoping to monetize or get bought out
>> before
>> burn out, bankruptcy and collapse.
>>
>> I have no doubt that FOSS has its own economic problems. But the
>> Silicon
>> Valley environment also assumes a particular economic model that has
>> now
>> become normalized, and we might at least recognize that open source
>> is not
>> the only economy that is 'fundamentally broken'. The economics of
>> *non*
>> open-source software, set in a broader environment of capital, are as
>> pathologic as they are productive.
>>
>> best, Luke
>>
>> On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 at 13:20, Peter Reutemann <<email obscured>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> '"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."'
>>>
>>> -- source: https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/09/01/1939233
>>>
>>> Cheers, Peter
>>> --
>>> Peter Reutemann
>>> Dept. of Computer Science
>>> University of Waikato, NZ
>>> +64 (7) 858-5174
>>> http://www.cms.waikato.ac.nz/~fracpete/
>>> http://www.data-mining.co.nz/
>>>
>>> ――
>>> View topic http://groups.nzoss.org.nz/r/topic/1j3Q6hsDyC8FyuL7LDI4l
>>> j
>>> Leave group mailto:openchat@groups.nzoss.org.nz?subject=Unsubscribe
>>>
>>> Start groups https://OnlineGroups.net
>>>
>> ――
>> View topic http://groups.nzoss.org.nz/r/topic/4dBGY7kV1Hi5BHLZWpYIog
>> Leave group mailto:openchat@groups.nzoss.org.nz?subject=Unsubscribe
>>
>> Start groups https://OnlineGroups.net

"Noone does open source coding for the money"
... I think this is confusing open source with software freedom.
The term "open source" was invented specifically to make the anarchistic
coding/development approach more freindly to businesses.
So yes ... there are people doing open source coding for money, and there
are businesses that hope to exploit open source and software freedom to
make money.

Businesses wanting to make money off open source are what the article is
talking about... not coding.

Rest of post

On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 6:12 PM Phil Daintree <<email obscured>> wrote:

> Bit confused ... open-source is not a "business model" - it is
> anarchistic doing coding for the love of it mostly. Surely no one does
> open source coding for the money?
>
> Phil
>
> Phil Daintree
> +64 (0)275 567890
>
> On 03/09/18 16:18, Don Christie wrote:
> > ― 1 file link ―
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I had similar thoughts when I read the article. This advice ("stop
> > doing open source if you want to earn a living") has been given to the
> > FOSS community at least once a year for years and is reasonably
> > ignorable.
> >
> > It *is* a valid topic, and I', pleased to say LCA 2019 has accepted my
> > talk on the subject :-)
> >
> > "Who pays the piper? The caller of the tune."
> >
> > I'm happy to take suggestions on the direction this talk should take.
> >
> > Of note, business models, open or closed, are hard. There is no
> > guarantee of success or failure.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Don
> >
> > On Mon, 2018-09-03 at 15:51 +1200, Luke Munn wrote:
> >> LOL, this is pretty funny coming from somebody working for Lyft - a
> >> ride-share model predicated on offloading all the risk and expenses
> >> onto
> >> drivers in a highly precarious labor model while extracting profits
> >> from
> >> their work. Their competitor Uber has been compared to a cash burning
> >> machine and has burnt through millions since its inception. Moreover,
> >> their
> >> turnover rate - drivers still working after the first year - is
> >> estimated
> >> at between 50% (from their own commissioned study a few years back)
> >> up to
> >> 90% from a more recent study. And this 'sharing economy' model itself
> >> located in a broader business model of the startup, which rapidly
> >> churns
> >> through capital and employees, hoping to monetize or get bought out
> >> before
> >> burn out, bankruptcy and collapse.
> >>
> >> I have no doubt that FOSS has its own economic problems. But the
> >> Silicon
> >> Valley environment also assumes a particular economic model that has
> >> now
> >> become normalized, and we might at least recognize that open source
> >> is not
> >> the only economy that is 'fundamentally broken'. The economics of
> >> *non*
> >> open-source software, set in a broader environment of capital, are as
> >> pathologic as they are productive.
> >>
> >> best, Luke
> >>
> >> On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 at 13:20, Peter Reutemann <<email obscured>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> '"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."'
> >>>
> >>> -- source: https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/09/01/1939233
> >>>
> >>> Cheers, Peter
> >>> --
> >>> Peter Reutemann
> >>> Dept. of Computer Science
> >>> University of Waikato, NZ
> >>> +64 (7) 858-5174
> >>> http://www.cms.waikato.ac.nz/~fracpete/
> >>> http://www.data-mining.co.nz/
> >>>
> >>> ――
> >>> View topic http://groups.nzoss.org.nz/r/topic/1j3Q6hsDyC8FyuL7LDI4l
> >>> j
> >>> Leave group mailto:openchat@groups.nzoss.org.nz?subject=Unsubscribe
> >>>
> >>> Start groups https://OnlineGroups.net
> >>>
> >> ――
> >> View topic http://groups.nzoss.org.nz/r/topic/4dBGY7kV1Hi5BHLZWpYIog
> >> Leave group mailto:openchat@groups.nzoss.org.nz?subject=Unsubscribe
> >>
> >> Start groups https://OnlineGroups.net
>
>
> ――
> View topic http://groups.nzoss.org.nz/r/topic/1tiSeE8nnLKH6Juy0AkGg9
> Leave group mailto:openchat@groups.nzoss.org.nz?subject=Unsubscribe
>
> Start groups https://OnlineGroups.net
>

Dunno about the rest of you, but I've been making a (pretty good) living
for the past 24ish years writing free and open source software for money
(and for fun - that's the best life, isn't it, enjoying your work?!)...
Almost all of what I/we work is (A)GPL licensed. It's not quite as easy
as having a built in proprietary monopoly, but it's not rocket science.

Cheers,

Dave

On 03/09/18 20:43, Simon Bridge wrote:
> "Noone does open source coding for the money"
> ... I think this is confusing open source with software freedom.
> The term "open source" was invented specifically to make the anarchistic
> coding/development approach more freindly to businesses.
> So yes ... there are people doing open source coding for money, and there
> are businesses that hope to exploit open source and software freedom to
> make money.
>
> Businesses wanting to make money off open source are what the article is
> talking about... not coding.
>
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 6:12 PM Phil Daintree <<email obscured>> wrote:
>
>> Bit confused ... open-source is not a "business model" - it is
>> anarchistic doing coding for the love of it mostly. Surely no one does
>> open source coding for the money?
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> Phil Daintree
>> +64 (0)275 567890
>>
>> On 03/09/18 16:18, Don Christie wrote:
>>> ― 1 file link ―
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I had similar thoughts when I read the article. This advice ("stop
>>> doing open source if you want to earn a living") has been given to the
>>> FOSS community at least once a year for years and is reasonably
>>> ignorable.
>>>
>>> It *is* a valid topic, and I', pleased to say LCA 2019 has accepted my
>>> talk on the subject :-)
>>>
>>> "Who pays the piper? The caller of the tune."
>>>
>>> I'm happy to take suggestions on the direction this talk should take.
>>>
>>> Of note, business models, open or closed, are hard. There is no
>>> guarantee of success or failure.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Don
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2018-09-03 at 15:51 +1200, Luke Munn wrote:
>>>> LOL, this is pretty funny coming from somebody working for Lyft - a
>>>> ride-share model predicated on offloading all the risk and expenses
>>>> onto
>>>> drivers in a highly precarious labor model while extracting profits
>>>> from
>>>> their work. Their competitor Uber has been compared to a cash burning
>>>> machine and has burnt through millions since its inception. Moreover,
>>>> their
>>>> turnover rate - drivers still working after the first year - is
>>>> estimated
>>>> at between 50% (from their own commissioned study a few years back)
>>>> up to
>>>> 90% from a more recent study. And this 'sharing economy' model itself
>>>> located in a broader business model of the startup, which rapidly
>>>> churns
>>>> through capital and employees, hoping to monetize or get bought out
>>>> before
>>>> burn out, bankruptcy and collapse.
>>>>
>>>> I have no doubt that FOSS has its own economic problems. But the
>>>> Silicon
>>>> Valley environment also assumes a particular economic model that has
>>>> now
>>>> become normalized, and we might at least recognize that open source
>>>> is not
>>>> the only economy that is 'fundamentally broken'. The economics of
>>>> *non*
>>>> open-source software, set in a broader environment of capital, are as
>>>> pathologic as they are productive.
>>>>
>>>> best, Luke
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 at 13:20, Peter Reutemann <<email obscured>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> '"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."'
>>>>>
>>>>> -- source: https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/09/01/1939233
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers, Peter
>>>>> --
>>>>> Peter Reutemann
>>>>> Dept. of Computer Science
>>>>> University of Waikato, NZ
>>>>> +64 (7) 858-5174
>>>>> http://www.cms.waikato.ac.nz/~fracpete/
>>>>> http://www.data-mining.co.nz/
>>>>>
>>>>> ――
>>>>> View topic http://groups.nzoss.org.nz/r/topic/1j3Q6hsDyC8FyuL7LDI4l
>>>>> j
>>>>> Leave group mailto:openchat@groups.nzoss.org.nz?subject=Unsubscribe
>>>>>
>>>>> Start groups https://OnlineGroups.net
>>>>>
>>>> ――
>>>> View topic http://groups.nzoss.org.nz/r/topic/4dBGY7kV1Hi5BHLZWpYIog
>>>> Leave group mailto:openchat@groups.nzoss.org.nz?subject=Unsubscribe
>>>>
>>>> Start groups https://OnlineGroups.net
>>
>>
>> ――
>> View topic http://groups.nzoss.org.nz/r/topic/1tiSeE8nnLKH6Juy0AkGg9
>> Leave group mailto:openchat@groups.nzoss.org.nz?subject=Unsubscribe
>>
>> Start groups https://OnlineGroups.net

Rest of post

And that's pretty much what I thought as I read it... the main point seemed
to be that attracting VC funding was the name of the game... Making a
comfortable living was dismissed as a "lifestyle" thing. Really? I'd be
happy making a comfortable living working with Open Source any day of the
week.

That's not to say that funding isn't needed to develop some of these
services however it also needs to be recognised that VC ROI expectations
based on some of the financial frenzies in the past are unrealistic.

Carl

Rest of post

On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 at 22:59, Dave Lane <<email obscured>> wrote:

> Dunno about the rest of you, but I've been making a (pretty good) living
> for the past 24ish years writing free and open source software for money
> (and for fun - that's the best life, isn't it, enjoying your work?!)...
> Almost all of what I/we work is (A)GPL licensed. It's not quite as easy
> as having a built in proprietary monopoly, but it's not rocket science.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
> On 03/09/18 20:43, Simon Bridge wrote:
> > "Noone does open source coding for the money"
> > ... I think this is confusing open source with software freedom.
> > The term "open source" was invented specifically to make the anarchistic
> > coding/development approach more freindly to businesses.
> > So yes ... there are people doing open source coding for money, and there
> > are businesses that hope to exploit open source and software freedom to
> > make money.
> >
> > Businesses wanting to make money off open source are what the article is
> > talking about... not coding.
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 6:12 PM Phil Daintree <<email obscured>>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Bit confused ... open-source is not a "business model" - it is
> >> anarchistic doing coding for the love of it mostly. Surely no one does
> >> open source coding for the money?
> >>
> >> Phil
> >>
> >> Phil Daintree
> >> +64 (0)275 567890
> >>
> >> On 03/09/18 16:18, Don Christie wrote:
> >>> ― 1 file link ―
> >>>
> >>> Hi
> >>>
> >>> I had similar thoughts when I read the article. This advice ("stop
> >>> doing open source if you want to earn a living") has been given to the
> >>> FOSS community at least once a year for years and is reasonably
> >>> ignorable.
> >>>
> >>> It *is* a valid topic, and I', pleased to say LCA 2019 has accepted my
> >>> talk on the subject :-)
> >>>
> >>> "Who pays the piper? The caller of the tune."
> >>>
> >>> I'm happy to take suggestions on the direction this talk should take.
> >>>
> >>> Of note, business models, open or closed, are hard. There is no
> >>> guarantee of success or failure.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Don
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, 2018-09-03 at 15:51 +1200, Luke Munn wrote:
> >>>> LOL, this is pretty funny coming from somebody working for Lyft - a
> >>>> ride-share model predicated on offloading all the risk and expenses
> >>>> onto
> >>>> drivers in a highly precarious labor model while extracting profits
> >>>> from
> >>>> their work. Their competitor Uber has been compared to a cash burning
> >>>> machine and has burnt through millions since its inception. Moreover,
> >>>> their
> >>>> turnover rate - drivers still working after the first year - is
> >>>> estimated
> >>>> at between 50% (from their own commissioned study a few years back)
> >>>> up to
> >>>> 90% from a more recent study. And this 'sharing economy' model itself
> >>>> located in a broader business model of the startup, which rapidly
> >>>> churns
> >>>> through capital and employees, hoping to monetize or get bought out
> >>>> before
> >>>> burn out, bankruptcy and collapse.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have no doubt that FOSS has its own economic problems. But the
> >>>> Silicon
> >>>> Valley environment also assumes a particular economic model that has
> >>>> now
> >>>> become normalized, and we might at least recognize that open source
> >>>> is not
> >>>> the only economy that is 'fundamentally broken'. The economics of
> >>>> *non*
> >>>> open-source software, set in a broader environment of capital, are as
> >>>> pathologic as they are productive.
> >>>>
> >>>> best, Luke
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 at 13:20, Peter Reutemann <<email obscured>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> '"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."'
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- source: https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/09/01/1939233
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers, Peter
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Peter Reutemann
> >>>>> Dept. of Computer Science
> >>>>> University of Waikato, NZ
> >>>>> +64 (7) 858-5174
> >>>>> http://www.cms.waikato.ac.nz/~fracpete/
> >>>>> http://www.data-mining.co.nz/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ――
> >>>>> View topic http://groups.nzoss.org.nz/r/topic/1j3Q6hsDyC8FyuL7LDI4l
> >>>>> j
> >>>>> Leave group mailto:openchat@groups.nzoss.org.nz?subject=Unsubscribe
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Start groups https://OnlineGroups.net
> >>>>>
> >>>> ――
> >>>> View topic http://groups.nzoss.org.nz/r/topic/4dBGY7kV1Hi5BHLZWpYIog
> >>>> Leave group mailto:openchat@groups.nzoss.org.nz?subject=Unsubscribe
> >>>>
> >>>> Start groups https://OnlineGroups.net
> >>
> >>
> >> ――
> >> View topic http://groups.nzoss.org.nz/r/topic/1tiSeE8nnLKH6Juy0AkGg9
> >> Leave group mailto:openchat@groups.nzoss.org.nz?subject=Unsubscribe
> >>
> >> Start groups https://OnlineGroups.net
> >>
> >
> > ――
> > View topic http://groups.nzoss.org.nz/r/topic/10vHROcs6Z9OO6X9fox9WP
> > Leave group mailto:openchat@groups.nzoss.org.nz?subject=Unsubscribe
> >
> > Start groups https://OnlineGroups.net
> >
>
>
> --
> Dave Lane, President, New Zealand Open Source Society
> e: <email obscured> m: 021 229 8147 w: http://nzoss.org.nz
>
> ――
> View topic http://groups.nzoss.org.nz/r/topic/7F5GyQ2IBDA9MBaj2RtcnU
> Leave group mailto:openchat@groups.nzoss.org.nz?subject=Unsubscribe
>
> Start groups https://OnlineGroups.net
>

The article leaves out dual licensing which was very profitable to Mysql
and others. These days there is also the crowdfunding model, patreon model
and the ICO model too.

BTW there was news recently where the average uber driver was making less
than $10.00 per hour so not a great model for people at all.

On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 1:19 PM Peter Reutemann <<email obscured>>
wrote:

Rest of post

> '"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."'
>
> -- source: https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/09/01/1939233
>
> Cheers, Peter
> --
> Peter Reutemann
> Dept. of Computer Science
> University of Waikato, NZ
> +64 (7) 858-5174
> http://www.cms.waikato.ac.nz/~fracpete/
> http://www.data-mining.co.nz/
>
> ――
> View topic http://groups.nzoss.org.nz/r/topic/1j3Q6hsDyC8FyuL7LDI4lj
> Leave group mailto:openchat@groups.nzoss.org.nz?subject=Unsubscribe
>
> Start groups https://OnlineGroups.net
>

Clearly this article is an exaggeration. as many replying correctly point
out people are making a living at open source.

In 2015 I managed to get a project I had been working on for a couple of
years released under the GPL. This actually cost me hard cash, but to me
the value of having the code base which had been a couple of years work by
a team of devs was too valuable to leave behind. And so as part of an
agreement with my employer the code was released under the GPL.

I tried to promote the project to various companies, and while there was a
positive reception in terms of some of demos it was not picked up. This
project is a prime candidate for becoming a Software as a Service offering,
although it needed more UI work.

The good news is that a large multinational did pick it up in terms of
using it to deliver significant use value to the company. Not only that but
I have been employed improving the software for the last couple of years.
However, the development has been occurring in house. To be crystal clear,
I am very thankful to this company. It gave me the opportunity to do what I
love while working on GPL code. But the code, while remaining GPL, has not
been released back to the public repo. There is no requirement that they do
so under the GPL, as they do not distribute it externally.

I'm currently working to get the code released back to the public repo by
making business cases around the benefits of collaboration with other
companies, especially when the code has use value only. There is a fair
chance this will work, but no assurances.

There is a relationship between this situation and the article, in that the
companies with the hard cash are more able to commit resources to open
source without related revenue. That is, when making the case to software
development companies I couldn't supply a revenue source out of the gate.
With a company that wants the software for it's use value they are not
seeking external revenue.

I would far prefer to be working on this from the public repo with a broad
set of users, but circumstances have conspired again to at least for now
lock it away.

Rest of post

Yeah, I'd also like to add my voice to the whole "high-growth revenue
generation is super important because VCs" wut thing. Why should OSS be
based around what VCs want? The whole high-growth-VC-blah-blah is
problematic as hell to begin with, in a whole BUNCH of ways, so basing an
argument that a movement (and the industry sometimes associated with it)
need to fit that?

Yeah, nah.

Rest of post

On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 at 06:43, Peter Harrison <<email obscured>> wrote:

> Clearly this article is an exaggeration. as many replying correctly point
> out people are making a living at open source.
>
> In 2015 I managed to get a project I had been working on for a couple of
> years released under the GPL. This actually cost me hard cash, but to me
> the value of having the code base which had been a couple of years work by
> a team of devs was too valuable to leave behind. And so as part of an
> agreement with my employer the code was released under the GPL.
>
> I tried to promote the project to various companies, and while there was a
> positive reception in terms of some of demos it was not picked up. This
> project is a prime candidate for becoming a Software as a Service offering,
> although it needed more UI work.
>
> The good news is that a large multinational did pick it up in terms of
> using it to deliver significant use value to the company. Not only that but
> I have been employed improving the software for the last couple of years.
> However, the development has been occurring in house. To be crystal clear,
> I am very thankful to this company. It gave me the opportunity to do what I
> love while working on GPL code. But the code, while remaining GPL, has not
> been released back to the public repo. There is no requirement that they do
> so under the GPL, as they do not distribute it externally.
>
> I'm currently working to get the code released back to the public repo by
> making business cases around the benefits of collaboration with other
> companies, especially when the code has use value only. There is a fair
> chance this will work, but no assurances.
>
> There is a relationship between this situation and the article, in that the
> companies with the hard cash are more able to commit resources to open
> source without related revenue. That is, when making the case to software
> development companies I couldn't supply a revenue source out of the gate.
> With a company that wants the software for it's use value they are not
> seeking external revenue.
>
> I would far prefer to be working on this from the public repo with a broad
> set of users, but circumstances have conspired again to at least for now
> lock it away.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 1:19 PM Peter Reutemann <<email obscured>>
> wrote:
>
> > '"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."'
> >
> > -- source: https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/09/01/1939233
> >
> > Cheers, Peter
> > --
> > Peter Reutemann
> > Dept. of Computer Science
> > University of Waikato, NZ
> > +64 (7) 858-5174
> > http://www.cms.waikato.ac.nz/~fracpete/
> > http://www.data-mining.co.nz/
> >
> > ――
> > View topic http://groups.nzoss.org.nz/r/topic/1j3Q6hsDyC8FyuL7LDI4lj
> > Leave group mailto:openchat@groups.nzoss.org.nz?subject=Unsubscribe
> >
> > Start groups https://OnlineGroups.net
> >
>
> ――
> View topic http://groups.nzoss.org.nz/r/topic/jZBL945vWZRVGCI7UcQ1n
> Leave group mailto:openchat@groups.nzoss.org.nz?subject=Unsubscribe
>
> Start groups https://OnlineGroups.net
>

--

-----

*aimee whitcroft*

*Note: I'm not generally available outside of Mon-Fri, 9am to 5pm NZT. If
you email me outside of those hours, please expect a delay in response :)*

linkedin.com/in/awhitcroft
nzoss.org.nz - Councillor
syntropics.nz - Founder
govworks.nz - Co-founder
govhack.org.nz - National lead (2017)
021 204 2536

There are 3 types profiting from OSS:
1. The developer like Dave who are able to living the dream, developing
stuff they enjoy and making a good income into the bargain - I suspect a
minority.
2. The VC (parasites) that hook into a great OSS on the back of a
committed group of hobbyist developers who have been beavering away for
years to build something great.
3. Businesses/users who have adopted/use a great OSS project - reaping
the productivity. The target audience.

When the VC's start complaining I am less than sympathetic.

Phil

On 2018-09-04 12:34, aimee whitcroft wrote:
> Yeah, I'd also like to add my voice to the whole "high-growth revenue
> generation is super important because VCs" wut thing. Why should OSS be
> based around what VCs want? The whole high-growth-VC-blah-blah is
> problematic as hell to begin with, in a whole BUNCH of ways, so basing
> an
> argument that a movement (and the industry sometimes associated with
> it)
> need to fit that?
>
> Yeah, nah.
>
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 at 06:43, Peter Harrison <<email obscured>>
> wrote:
>
>> Clearly this article is an exaggeration. as many replying correctly
>> point
>> out people are making a living at open source.
>>
>> In 2015 I managed to get a project I had been working on for a couple
>> of
>> years released under the GPL. This actually cost me hard cash, but to
>> me
>> the value of having the code base which had been a couple of years
>> work by
>> a team of devs was too valuable to leave behind. And so as part of an
>> agreement with my employer the code was released under the GPL.
>>
>> I tried to promote the project to various companies, and while there
>> was a
>> positive reception in terms of some of demos it was not picked up.
>> This
>> project is a prime candidate for becoming a Software as a Service
>> offering,
>> although it needed more UI work.
>>
>> The good news is that a large multinational did pick it up in terms of
>> using it to deliver significant use value to the company. Not only
>> that but
>> I have been employed improving the software for the last couple of
>> years.
>> However, the development has been occurring in house. To be crystal
>> clear,
>> I am very thankful to this company. It gave me the opportunity to do
>> what I
>> love while working on GPL code. But the code, while remaining GPL, has
>> not
>> been released back to the public repo. There is no requirement that
>> they do
>> so under the GPL, as they do not distribute it externally.
>>
>> I'm currently working to get the code released back to the public repo
>> by
>> making business cases around the benefits of collaboration with other
>> companies, especially when the code has use value only. There is a
>> fair
>> chance this will work, but no assurances.
>>
>> There is a relationship between this situation and the article, in
>> that the
>> companies with the hard cash are more able to commit resources to open
>> source without related revenue. That is, when making the case to
>> software
>> development companies I couldn't supply a revenue source out of the
>> gate.
>> With a company that wants the software for it's use value they are not
>> seeking external revenue.
>>
>> I would far prefer to be working on this from the public repo with a
>> broad
>> set of users, but circumstances have conspired again to at least for
>> now
>> lock it away.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 1:19 PM Peter Reutemann
>> <<email obscured>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > '"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."'
>> >
>> > -- source: https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/09/01/1939233
>> >
>> > Cheers, Peter
>> > --
>> > Peter Reutemann
>> > Dept. of Computer Science
>> > University of Waikato, NZ
>> > +64 (7) 858-5174
>> > http://www.cms.waikato.ac.nz/~fracpete/
>> > http://www.data-mining.co.nz/
>> >
>> > ――
>> > View topic http://groups.nzoss.org.nz/r/topic/1j3Q6hsDyC8FyuL7LDI4lj
>> > Leave group mailto:openchat@groups.nzoss.org.nz?subject=Unsubscribe
>> >
>> > Start groups https://OnlineGroups.net
>> >
>>
>> ――
>> View topic http://groups.nzoss.org.nz/r/topic/jZBL945vWZRVGCI7UcQ1n
>> Leave group mailto:openchat@groups.nzoss.org.nz?subject=Unsubscribe
>>
>> Start groups https://OnlineGroups.net

Rest of post

You cannot post because you are not logged in.

How Can We Fix The Broken Economics of Open Source?

Already a member?

Not a member?