Should I open source a commercial product? | Hacker News Reader

Should I open source a commercial product?

Hey everyone,

I'm currently working on a side project which is a paid product (no free tier). Main target audience right now are software developers, but it also works for other industries (it's a job hunting tool).

I've put quite a bit of work into it and the main reason why I didn't go open source from the start is because I was afraid someone might copy the code and sell it on their own. Also since the main target audience are software devs, people might just spin their own instance to avoid paying for the product.

Does anyone have any advice on this? Is it worth open sourcing a comercial product? Right now the main benefit I see is that people might feel more comfortable using it since they can check what the app does, but not sure how relevant this is for most (personally I've never browsed the source code of any app I've ever used).

View on HN

There are successful companies that are open source and seem to be doing well (though both have free tiers). Two that come to mind immediately are writing platform bibisco and email service Proton Mail. There's a list at https://github.com/mrjoelkemp/awesome-paid-open-source which isn't exhaustive, and, again, all have a free tier. So it's possible to do so but they generally use a free tier. Sorry if this wasn't helpful. I started this trying to figure out if I could find one similar (open source, paid only) that was successful, but negative results are important also! That said, your concern that someone might copy the code doesn't seem to be that big - I mean, no one seems to have done that with Proton Mail, which boasts c.100 million (!) users.

Thanks, makes sense for the free tier use cases. Regarding Proton, it's kinda hard to compete with them since they are a really well established company, but in case of a one man show, someone else could easily copy the product and start pouring some marketing money into it.

You can publish your project under your own licensing terms. In your license, you can prohibit the creation of derivative works based on your source code, except for building executables for personal use, provided your clients obtain a commercial license from you. This way, GitHub users can audit and fork your repository, but they won't be able to sell your software under their own terms.

I'm not a lawyer, and it's generally a good idea to consult a specialist when drafting licensing terms. However, in my personal opinion, it's often better to draft a project-specific license yourself to start, rather than using a popular open-source license, most of which are not aligned with typical commercialization goals.

That's an interesting idea, but wouldn't it be seen as a bit of a red flag? I thought most devs if they see a license other than MIT they will frown upon it :)

On a more general note, it's often challenging to sell anything to the software developer community, regardless of the licensing terms you choose. I believe you'll gain commercial traction only if your product is closer to the real market. In this sense, using the MIT license may expose your project to the risks you mentioned.

As for community feedback, it doesn't necessarily have to be negative. Recently, I published my project under a non-standard license and received generally positive feedback[1], despite my project being in a very niche field.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40747845

makes sense, thanks a lot for your advice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com