Most insightful comment in this mishmash.
I'll say it again for future searchers of wisdom: Open Source is not a Business Model.
I'll say it again for future searchers of wisdom: Open Source is not a Business Model.
Saying 'it's not a business model' is basically equivalent to saying 'I don't have to worry about money.'
A business model is where you figure out who will give you money in exchange for value delivered. If you need money, you probably should think about that. And then you'll need to spend some time on execution of that plan.
I get that programmers just want to make things and have people use them. I feel that too. But pretending that "open source" is a business model is essentially just denying economic reality. It's the same thing when young artists grumble about having to earn a living somehow when they'd rather just be creating art.
People can definitely make a living with open-source software. But it doesn't happen by magic, any more than it does with closed-source software. It takes thought and work. That work is grubby and mundane and a bit banal, but it has to get done.
I have a ton of closed-source software in my projects folder. That's not a business model. Neither is open-source software, where I take some of that stuff and throw it up on GitHub.
A business model is where I repeatably create value for others and receive money in exchange. A modern software company can do that in a variety of ways, including selling training, documentation, support, custom features, consulting, services, and licensing.
Both open- and closed-source companies do that. They have business models. But open source on its own is not a business model, and neither is closed source.
And what's definitely not a business model is releasing something as open source and hoping that somebody gives me money. Businesses don't just happen. Somebody has to build them.
It is however a possibility.
I make some software. You like what it does and want to use it. I ask for money. If the price is right you give me cash and I give you an executable file.
How is that not a business model?
And what's definitely not a business model is releasing something as open source and hoping that somebody gives me money. Businesses don't just happen. Somebody has to build them.
I never claimed open source was a business model. I said the inability to easily monetize OSS is a limiting factor on its development because people need to eat and pay rent.
> I make some software. You like what it does and want to use it. I ask for money. If the price is right you give me cash and I give you an executable file. How is that not a business model?
That business model is selling executables that let your customers do some unspecified thing they care about. I have paid money to people who give me executables for both open- and closed-source software, so that description applies to both.
Making and releasing open-source software to the public, though, is not a business model. Which is why the Octave developer is struggling.
> I said the inability to easily monetize OSS is a limiting factor on its development because people need to eat and pay rent.
Right. But that's not specific to open-source software. Needing to eat, etc, is a limiting factor on making all software. And making almost anything else.
No, Sir. I think the point flew past you. Saying "it's not a business model" means that you need to worry about how to sustain yourself from the get-go if you want to go where ever pleases you, open or closed source.