Why would any solo dev release open source?
-
You can consider this discussion Part 2 of this one: Open Source / Source-Available / Dual-License: We Need a new license! [^] I have a few questions: 1. Has any solo developer released Open Source Software (OSS) and then been better off for it? a) there are numerous stories of OSS devs who have been so frustrated that they later yanked their software and caused great tumult 2. Why would any solo developer ever release their software as OSS? Debunked Myth Hasn't Proliferated Yet The only answer I can come up with is "They think they will be helped along by the generosity of those who use their software". But that myth has been debunked. People don't donate actual $$. If you don't believe this, watch this video of Bruno Lowagie of iText fame (text to PDF conversion) and all of his struggles. Creating OSS is actually exasperating. Open Source Survival: A Story from the Trenches - YouTube[^] The video is long but I watched it at 1.5x speed. Linus & Linux? Ok, I'll give you this one, Linus seems to have done ok, but can you name any others who have really succeeded? When you release your software as OSS you can't actually profit from others using it. You can only profit by charging for documentation or support or other on-the-side things. That means only huge companies who can build huge support structures can really make money. That means no single dev could ever really do that. I'm pretty sure OSS is now just a way for large companies to use developer's solutions without ever having to pay them. Tell my why I'm wrong.
Open Source has been a great time and effort saver for a lot of technical architects like us. We benefit by having teams incorporate work that we don't trust our devs to accomplish in the required measure of quality and comprehensiveness. The recurring issue is always how to ensure that there are no litigatory blowbacks. The problem is that when an OSS component is incorporated there is no easy way to ensure that the transaction completes likes the one for a loaf of bread rather than the one for a hotel room where the cost escalates per person, per day and per usage. Today the market is so fragmented that individual OSS devs have no pricing power and have no consistentcy of monetization. If OSS were consolidated into something like an App Store that allowed us to use the components like you would use a packet of Lego blocks and pay legally binding fees enumerated fairly only for that slab of usage without creating legal baggage for our customers, our corporate culture would happily jump at it. PS: I'm specifically looking at Cloud Marketplaces where people pay per hour for OSS images that get deployed to infrastructure and are charged consistently, fairly and legally.
Paras Parmar, Tech Architecture and Services.
-
I guess I've never considered that, and feel better about things continuing not to consider it. :~
Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
I guess if you are getting f****d in the a** and there is nothing you can do about it, then it is best not to think about it? Is that your position?
-
I guess if you are getting f****d in the a** and there is nothing you can do about it, then it is best not to think about it? Is that your position?
I don't agree with that. For starters google has not taken my code and used it, so the hypothetical I was responding to was just that. And if I didn't enjoy what I was doing, I wouldn't do it.
Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
-
Open Source has been a great time and effort saver for a lot of technical architects like us. We benefit by having teams incorporate work that we don't trust our devs to accomplish in the required measure of quality and comprehensiveness. The recurring issue is always how to ensure that there are no litigatory blowbacks. The problem is that when an OSS component is incorporated there is no easy way to ensure that the transaction completes likes the one for a loaf of bread rather than the one for a hotel room where the cost escalates per person, per day and per usage. Today the market is so fragmented that individual OSS devs have no pricing power and have no consistentcy of monetization. If OSS were consolidated into something like an App Store that allowed us to use the components like you would use a packet of Lego blocks and pay legally binding fees enumerated fairly only for that slab of usage without creating legal baggage for our customers, our corporate culture would happily jump at it. PS: I'm specifically looking at Cloud Marketplaces where people pay per hour for OSS images that get deployed to infrastructure and are charged consistently, fairly and legally.
Paras Parmar, Tech Architecture and Services.
What bugs me is that "Open Source communities" believe that they (/Stallman) invented open source, and there is a heavy price tag on anything that comes from another source (lacking a 'copyleft' or a page of legalese reducing your freedom not only with respect to not only the 'free' code, but to your own code as well). This is utter bullshit. The two first OSes I used seriously, one for a mainframe, the second for a mini (PDP-11 class) was distributed in source form in the late 1970s. In 1979, my second year at the U, I was learning how a compiler worked by studying the source code of the standard Pascal compiler freely available form ETH Zürich. Our university subscribed to the ACM numerical algorithms library (sorry, I have forgotten the formal name of it!), distributed as Fortran IV source code. By 1980, it filled an entire shelf of heavy ring binders - a couple thousand functions, I believe (maybe it was even more than that). Internet was beginning to arrive, although slowly both in the coming and in line speeds, so tech universities started offering thousands by thousands of open source programs, available for ftp download. I guess a few CP members remember ftp.funet.fi, probably the largest open source ftp site of the day. From their very first appearance "the OSS community" has tried to take the honor for something that was decades old when they presented their manifests. They try to take it over, take control, dictate their own rights to obtain everything for free, and declaring their own virtuous idealism as the justification for their demands of control, even over your source code. Before the OSS manifests, the respect for the work of other developers were much higher. You just didn't rip off other people's code, even if it was available. OSS spread the idea that you indeed have the right to use any source code you can lay your hand on. If it carries an OSS license demanding that you make you own work available at no charge, then fine. If it does not, then there are no restrictions. OSS is similar to so many congregations: The ideals and scriptures may be fine, but the priesthood (and to some degree the congregation) can give you the creeps.
-
You can consider this discussion Part 2 of this one: Open Source / Source-Available / Dual-License: We Need a new license! [^] I have a few questions: 1. Has any solo developer released Open Source Software (OSS) and then been better off for it? a) there are numerous stories of OSS devs who have been so frustrated that they later yanked their software and caused great tumult 2. Why would any solo developer ever release their software as OSS? Debunked Myth Hasn't Proliferated Yet The only answer I can come up with is "They think they will be helped along by the generosity of those who use their software". But that myth has been debunked. People don't donate actual $$. If you don't believe this, watch this video of Bruno Lowagie of iText fame (text to PDF conversion) and all of his struggles. Creating OSS is actually exasperating. Open Source Survival: A Story from the Trenches - YouTube[^] The video is long but I watched it at 1.5x speed. Linus & Linux? Ok, I'll give you this one, Linus seems to have done ok, but can you name any others who have really succeeded? When you release your software as OSS you can't actually profit from others using it. You can only profit by charging for documentation or support or other on-the-side things. That means only huge companies who can build huge support structures can really make money. That means no single dev could ever really do that. I'm pretty sure OSS is now just a way for large companies to use developer's solutions without ever having to pay them. Tell my why I'm wrong.
I cannot really say for others but I don't really expect or care if anyone will contribute with my projects. Whatever I do as OSS was something useful to me or some concept I made up in my mind that I want out (so I can focus on other things), I maintain it working for my own needs, and I share because I think they might be just as useful to others as they are for me. These are usually so small and quick to be done (things I can get working in a week or two) that I don't care if someone will try and monetise it for themselves thus I just share. That's my opinion. Whenever I get to write something I think is worth charging for, sure I will.
- Leonardo
-
You can consider this discussion Part 2 of this one: Open Source / Source-Available / Dual-License: We Need a new license! [^] I have a few questions: 1. Has any solo developer released Open Source Software (OSS) and then been better off for it? a) there are numerous stories of OSS devs who have been so frustrated that they later yanked their software and caused great tumult 2. Why would any solo developer ever release their software as OSS? Debunked Myth Hasn't Proliferated Yet The only answer I can come up with is "They think they will be helped along by the generosity of those who use their software". But that myth has been debunked. People don't donate actual $$. If you don't believe this, watch this video of Bruno Lowagie of iText fame (text to PDF conversion) and all of his struggles. Creating OSS is actually exasperating. Open Source Survival: A Story from the Trenches - YouTube[^] The video is long but I watched it at 1.5x speed. Linus & Linux? Ok, I'll give you this one, Linus seems to have done ok, but can you name any others who have really succeeded? When you release your software as OSS you can't actually profit from others using it. You can only profit by charging for documentation or support or other on-the-side things. That means only huge companies who can build huge support structures can really make money. That means no single dev could ever really do that. I'm pretty sure OSS is now just a way for large companies to use developer's solutions without ever having to pay them. Tell my why I'm wrong.
This is a great discussion and I don't think you're wrong.
Quote:
2. Why would any solo developer ever release their software as OSS?
When it comes to a full-blown piece of software with a Git-ridden release, that one may have spent a thousand hours or more on? I'd say Jeremy Falcon came up with a good list, but do the reasons stated justify the actions? I suppose some of those started as "side projects" for those every waking moment programmers. Maybe one's hoping that it's good enough for some company to come along and buy it. It's pretty rare, but it does happen. Though I think you'd be better off getting to the MVP point and publishing it if that is your goal. On a more macro level, where you're not looking at major-scale programs, it can serve as a CV to get additional paid work. I work with a dev who posts many fully working functions as OSS, which is how I found them. And they are making some good money (in their home country) from me as well as others. In another case, I reached out to an OSS publisher I found, and they told me they were too busy with other contracts to take on new work. So, there is that aspect. The bar to creating a commercially viable product remains high today, though somewhat easier than it was in the 'pioneer days'. Which reminds me to kick myself, since back in the day, a couple of buddies and I created an actual working messenger system prior to Yahoo and MSN. My view off my back deck today might be a lot different if we put it out there as OSS?
-
You can consider this discussion Part 2 of this one: Open Source / Source-Available / Dual-License: We Need a new license! [^] I have a few questions: 1. Has any solo developer released Open Source Software (OSS) and then been better off for it? a) there are numerous stories of OSS devs who have been so frustrated that they later yanked their software and caused great tumult 2. Why would any solo developer ever release their software as OSS? Debunked Myth Hasn't Proliferated Yet The only answer I can come up with is "They think they will be helped along by the generosity of those who use their software". But that myth has been debunked. People don't donate actual $$. If you don't believe this, watch this video of Bruno Lowagie of iText fame (text to PDF conversion) and all of his struggles. Creating OSS is actually exasperating. Open Source Survival: A Story from the Trenches - YouTube[^] The video is long but I watched it at 1.5x speed. Linus & Linux? Ok, I'll give you this one, Linus seems to have done ok, but can you name any others who have really succeeded? When you release your software as OSS you can't actually profit from others using it. You can only profit by charging for documentation or support or other on-the-side things. That means only huge companies who can build huge support structures can really make money. That means no single dev could ever really do that. I'm pretty sure OSS is now just a way for large companies to use developer's solutions without ever having to pay them. Tell my why I'm wrong.
I wrote and released the SETI@Home SETIDriver application. Ended up I was the only person maintaining it but there were a couple of folks who found bugs for me that I had been unable to track down. Someone in the ARS Community built my web-site for SETIDriver. That said, I can understand how unpaid maintainers can get to a point where they just shut down. I think their decision to pull the code is wrong since they put it out as OSS, but I can definitely understand why they would pull their support.
-
You can consider this discussion Part 2 of this one: Open Source / Source-Available / Dual-License: We Need a new license! [^] I have a few questions: 1. Has any solo developer released Open Source Software (OSS) and then been better off for it? a) there are numerous stories of OSS devs who have been so frustrated that they later yanked their software and caused great tumult 2. Why would any solo developer ever release their software as OSS? Debunked Myth Hasn't Proliferated Yet The only answer I can come up with is "They think they will be helped along by the generosity of those who use their software". But that myth has been debunked. People don't donate actual $$. If you don't believe this, watch this video of Bruno Lowagie of iText fame (text to PDF conversion) and all of his struggles. Creating OSS is actually exasperating. Open Source Survival: A Story from the Trenches - YouTube[^] The video is long but I watched it at 1.5x speed. Linus & Linux? Ok, I'll give you this one, Linus seems to have done ok, but can you name any others who have really succeeded? When you release your software as OSS you can't actually profit from others using it. You can only profit by charging for documentation or support or other on-the-side things. That means only huge companies who can build huge support structures can really make money. That means no single dev could ever really do that. I'm pretty sure OSS is now just a way for large companies to use developer's solutions without ever having to pay them. Tell my why I'm wrong.
Other than altruism and advertising, I would have one very good reason to open source: not losing the source code. This happened to me once. I wrote a program called BitFont and never provided the source code. My floppies deteriorated or were thrown out and I would love to have some parts of the source code that I would have a hard time replicating, but it's gone, gone, gone! The source is not archived anywhere.
-
This is a great discussion and I don't think you're wrong.
Quote:
2. Why would any solo developer ever release their software as OSS?
When it comes to a full-blown piece of software with a Git-ridden release, that one may have spent a thousand hours or more on? I'd say Jeremy Falcon came up with a good list, but do the reasons stated justify the actions? I suppose some of those started as "side projects" for those every waking moment programmers. Maybe one's hoping that it's good enough for some company to come along and buy it. It's pretty rare, but it does happen. Though I think you'd be better off getting to the MVP point and publishing it if that is your goal. On a more macro level, where you're not looking at major-scale programs, it can serve as a CV to get additional paid work. I work with a dev who posts many fully working functions as OSS, which is how I found them. And they are making some good money (in their home country) from me as well as others. In another case, I reached out to an OSS publisher I found, and they told me they were too busy with other contracts to take on new work. So, there is that aspect. The bar to creating a commercially viable product remains high today, though somewhat easier than it was in the 'pioneer days'. Which reminds me to kick myself, since back in the day, a couple of buddies and I created an actual working messenger system prior to Yahoo and MSN. My view off my back deck today might be a lot different if we put it out there as OSS?
Thanks for joining the discussion. I believe some of my challenges are 1. Having this thing that would help a niche of users 2. Wanting to share all the details with other devs bec I believe in sharing and helping 3. Balancing that with not getting taken advantage of if the thing really does take off I believe the naive hope of every OSS dev in the beginning is that “people and companies will do the right thing if my software helps them and it gets used in big ways” That’s the world I want to live in. Unfortunately the reality is something different and you have to do all of this “legal” work up front.
-
I wrote and released the SETI@Home SETIDriver application. Ended up I was the only person maintaining it but there were a couple of folks who found bugs for me that I had been unable to track down. Someone in the ARS Community built my web-site for SETIDriver. That said, I can understand how unpaid maintainers can get to a point where they just shut down. I think their decision to pull the code is wrong since they put it out as OSS, but I can definitely understand why they would pull their support.
obermd said:
but I can definitely understand why they would pull their support.
Yes at some point when the OSS dev takes a look at her real life and discovers that she is still living in a shack eating Doritos for lunch and driving a scooter to work each day all while tons of users are clamoring for changes then it all turns sour. :-D
-
Other than altruism and advertising, I would have one very good reason to open source: not losing the source code. This happened to me once. I wrote a program called BitFont and never provided the source code. My floppies deteriorated or were thrown out and I would love to have some parts of the source code that I would have a hard time replicating, but it's gone, gone, gone! The source is not archived anywhere.
-
I actually agree with your examples...except... Those things don't scale like Software. A plumber can never fix 100 million pipes himself. A mechanic can never fix 100 million cars himself. The point is that if you create a software solution it may be used by 100 million people. Ah, and the mechanic may create an add-on that he sells that allows consumers to up their gas mileage. Then, 100 million people could buy it. He may even tell people how it works -- and be protected by patent protection. However, if I tell you how the software works and then you take the source and build it and use it for 100 million users there is no patent protection (and I'm glad you can't patent software). So, again, I'm just talking about protecting OSS creators so that if their package or solution does get used by 100s of millions of people by BigCorp and BigCorp didn't have to pay for any dev then somehow the original OSS dev should get her "fair share".
raddevus wrote:
Those things don't scale like Software.
Exactly - because of the cost. And because it cannot be copied. Certainly those that were building desks wanted to do exactly that.
raddevus wrote:
So, again, I'm just talking about protecting OSS creators so that if their package or solution does get used by 100s of millions of people by BigCorp and BigCorp didn't have to pay for any dev then somehow the original OSS dev should get her "fair share".
And as I mentioned several times - then start a company. That is how people do that that want to get paid.
-
You can consider this discussion Part 2 of this one: Open Source / Source-Available / Dual-License: We Need a new license! [^] I have a few questions: 1. Has any solo developer released Open Source Software (OSS) and then been better off for it? a) there are numerous stories of OSS devs who have been so frustrated that they later yanked their software and caused great tumult 2. Why would any solo developer ever release their software as OSS? Debunked Myth Hasn't Proliferated Yet The only answer I can come up with is "They think they will be helped along by the generosity of those who use their software". But that myth has been debunked. People don't donate actual $$. If you don't believe this, watch this video of Bruno Lowagie of iText fame (text to PDF conversion) and all of his struggles. Creating OSS is actually exasperating. Open Source Survival: A Story from the Trenches - YouTube[^] The video is long but I watched it at 1.5x speed. Linus & Linux? Ok, I'll give you this one, Linus seems to have done ok, but can you name any others who have really succeeded? When you release your software as OSS you can't actually profit from others using it. You can only profit by charging for documentation or support or other on-the-side things. That means only huge companies who can build huge support structures can really make money. That means no single dev could ever really do that. I'm pretty sure OSS is now just a way for large companies to use developer's solutions without ever having to pay them. Tell my why I'm wrong.
Wow! Your really thinking serious about this. I tried to develop several ECommerce platforms, was going to post it on Github to see if I could get some momentum going with it, but decided not to. What changed my mind was how many Angular plugins I was using, where the author gave up on it and abandoned the code. Then I had to abandon their plugin for it was no longer compatible with future version of Angular. Angular was changing so fast, that these authors couldn't keep up with Google and it's shear size compared to a single developer. And that's just a small plugin. I have a friend that develops low tech construction tools, and does quite well. I choose to develop software, and my friend runs 200x circles around me money wise. I love coding, but these low tech devices are much easier to develop and bring to market than software, and are easier to sell and cash in on. So now I sell my friends low tech stuff and I do quite well, but I still write software, hoping to cash in one day. People don't want to pay for software and think it should be free. Just like music, books, etc. But people will pay for solutions or systems based on software, if you can prove it will raise their bottom line 30% more, and increase consistency or accurately. I'm working on a Windows app that several customers wanted, for sending freight out of the warehouse to the destination. It was suppose to be a custom solution for one customer, but I changed my mind and decided to try and make this solution an asset, something I can sell over and over again, and not limit it to a single customer. I'm going to connect the data for this project to AWS, and make it cloud compatible, suggested by my friend that works for Blizzard/Activsion, who is helping me with that part. I'm not going to waste time setting this up on GitHub, nor make it open source. And I have changed how I think about my app, where it's the data and how it's structured on the cloud that has the value, and the app just allows one to use the data effectively. Then the app can be ported as a web based app as well for low volume users and a monthly fee of $15. This is a good post and thought to think about. I think for software engineers who think more like an engineer, GitHub or open source licensing is the way to monetize their work, instead thinking like a capitalist, and using other methods to monetize their work. Nice Post!
If it ain't broke don't fix it Discover my world at jkirke
-
You can consider this discussion Part 2 of this one: Open Source / Source-Available / Dual-License: We Need a new license! [^] I have a few questions: 1. Has any solo developer released Open Source Software (OSS) and then been better off for it? a) there are numerous stories of OSS devs who have been so frustrated that they later yanked their software and caused great tumult 2. Why would any solo developer ever release their software as OSS? Debunked Myth Hasn't Proliferated Yet The only answer I can come up with is "They think they will be helped along by the generosity of those who use their software". But that myth has been debunked. People don't donate actual $$. If you don't believe this, watch this video of Bruno Lowagie of iText fame (text to PDF conversion) and all of his struggles. Creating OSS is actually exasperating. Open Source Survival: A Story from the Trenches - YouTube[^] The video is long but I watched it at 1.5x speed. Linus & Linux? Ok, I'll give you this one, Linus seems to have done ok, but can you name any others who have really succeeded? When you release your software as OSS you can't actually profit from others using it. You can only profit by charging for documentation or support or other on-the-side things. That means only huge companies who can build huge support structures can really make money. That means no single dev could ever really do that. I'm pretty sure OSS is now just a way for large companies to use developer's solutions without ever having to pay them. Tell my why I'm wrong.
The people who pushed the Open Source narrative were complete idiots who destroyed a growing cottage industry for third-party development. Obviously, these people never had to work to support themselves and believed that giving away software was an intelligent business model. As a result, few of us can make any monies off our endeavors leaving most such development to the hopes of many that by delivering core programming without charges will allow for the development of paid extensions. I imagine some have been lucky with following this model but how many? I have already produced three commercial products with none being able to attain any monetary benefit, though all of my products are unique unto themselves, with one of them competitively priced against the 2 major vendor products. This being said, the Open Source paradigm has allowed all of us to study different types of development paradigms while also gaining access to software we would have had to originally buy. However, the Open Source paradigm should have been thought through better with an understanding to the consequences of destroying profit-making enterprises. But all this has now been lost with the only option being that everyone start building their products as "shareware", which was once popular in the 1990s and early 2000s, leaving Open Source to code-snippets and concept code...
Steve Naidamast Sr. Software Engineer Black Falcon Software, Inc. blackfalconsoftware@outlook.com
-
jschell wrote:
What if instead they hired you as a 'guru' to support all of their product lines because you were the author. And paid you significantly more than you were making as a developer.
That is a very good point and is one of the dreams of OSS devs, but I'm just not sure how much it really happens. I think that it doesn't happen as often as we hope because I think BigCorps are often using things without wanting anyone to really know -- as a way of limiting litigation. I also think that statistically it doesn't happen much because there are vast numbers of OSS components but rarely do I hear of this. But, hopefully I'm wrong and it does happen more often than I think.
raddevus wrote:
I think that it doesn't happen as often as we hope because I think BigCorps are often using things without wanting anyone to really know
Hardly. There are no human organizations that are omniscient. Organizations, even more so that people, blunder their way through their history based on nothing more than irrational biases that one or groups within have. Why irrational? Because they almost never use any real data for the decisions. Even those that present data often do so with incomplete sets and using cherry picking to support their forgone conclusions. The most prevalent reason for not hiring a specific OSS developer is because the company does not actually need that expertise. Where need is still based on irrational biases. Note that I am not using those terms to denigrate but merely to describe the actual processes. As an actual example of this I have never worked with even a single developer who actually researches licenses before using third party code. I have seen developers claim that because it was found on the internet it is free to use without regard. I have seen developers that do not even know that licenses exist. I have seen developers that cannot read a license and understand what it means. However I have seen some managers that were at least aware of why that could be a problem. But I have also seen 'C' level people who were completely unaware of the problem. I certainly don't expect any other group within an organization to be smarter than developers.
-
jschell wrote:
I think you do not know how many software companies exist now and have been created in the past. Many fail.
I absolutely get that. I think that mostly what businesses do, is fail. It's very difficult to get a business going. IMO, Much harder than writing code. That's why I'm thinking / hoping that now that I have a great idea for a SaaS that could be offered to Companies of all sizes to run On-Prem that solves a specific problem for them, that I want to make sure if I release it to open source (and I really want to release it to Open Source) then I can protect myself so if it really takes off as I think it would that I would then be remunerated properly. It's definitely not just about the $$$ for me, because I've been a dev for 30 years. But if the thing takes off I definitely don't want to say, "oh well, I could've made happy $$ that would help my family but since I opened-sourced it I still drive a crappy car and am living paycheck to paycheck.
raddevus wrote:
then I can protect myself so if it really takes off as I think it would that I would then be remunerated properly.
Yes, by creating a company. You can create a license for the product/service of the company that allows usage on a limited scale for free. And after that they pay. There are already many examples of that out there.
-
I think you make a lot of great points in your post. I definitely feel that this is one of the things that gets me:
jschell wrote:
They do not want the commitment of a full time job/company.
That's why I was (probably wrongly) hoping that 1. I could release as Open Source 2. Lots of people could use it and many of them (also sole devs & smaller companies) could use it for free or very cheap ($12 per year) 2. Add licensing that says, "Hey, if this thing takes off and BigCorp starts using it, then you will pay me well for all my hard work." That's the Real Dream. :rolleyes:
raddevus wrote:
That's why I was (probably wrongly) hoping that 1. I could release as Open Source 2. Lots of people could use it and many of them (also sole devs & smaller companies) could use it for free or very cheap ($12 per year) 2. Add licensing that says, "Hey, if this thing takes off and BigCorp starts using it, then you will pay me well for all my hard work."
github -free level papertrail - low cost initial level mixpanel - free level AWS S3 - low cost initial level. Many (all?) AWS services have something like this. Textpad - low unlimited single use license. google maps - limited monthly limit for no charge. (I suspect you need to insure the limit yourself.) I am certain there are many others.
-
You can consider this discussion Part 2 of this one: Open Source / Source-Available / Dual-License: We Need a new license! [^] I have a few questions: 1. Has any solo developer released Open Source Software (OSS) and then been better off for it? a) there are numerous stories of OSS devs who have been so frustrated that they later yanked their software and caused great tumult 2. Why would any solo developer ever release their software as OSS? Debunked Myth Hasn't Proliferated Yet The only answer I can come up with is "They think they will be helped along by the generosity of those who use their software". But that myth has been debunked. People don't donate actual $$. If you don't believe this, watch this video of Bruno Lowagie of iText fame (text to PDF conversion) and all of his struggles. Creating OSS is actually exasperating. Open Source Survival: A Story from the Trenches - YouTube[^] The video is long but I watched it at 1.5x speed. Linus & Linux? Ok, I'll give you this one, Linus seems to have done ok, but can you name any others who have really succeeded? When you release your software as OSS you can't actually profit from others using it. You can only profit by charging for documentation or support or other on-the-side things. That means only huge companies who can build huge support structures can really make money. That means no single dev could ever really do that. I'm pretty sure OSS is now just a way for large companies to use developer's solutions without ever having to pay them. Tell my why I'm wrong.
The most obvious valid reason to release code as OSS if you are a stand-alone developer is that it will add credibility to your CV. Then not only you can claim that you know how do/use X, and there is also tangible proof of it. And a better CV means higher pay. Another not so obvious reason, if you give out the source code then paying customers will be easier to lure in because if you stop working on it, they are not left with a binary blackbox which they cannot use/fix. Now, you may argue that the latter is not OSS but it depends on what your business model is. OSS is a distribution stragegy that may, or may not, make sense for you business. A typical scenario where it makes sense is if you are selling hardware, e.g. an IoT for a niche market. At my current company we are using an LTE router with specific hardware I/O, which runs OpenWRT customized by the vendor. They can, and do, give us almost(*) all of the source code because their advantage is the hardware, not the software. (*) and I wish it was really, really, really all of the source code. I stumbled the other day on a bug from an OSS library that our vendor uses, but that is bundled together into a binary blob with their own private code. If I had the full source, the fix would have been done by me that very same day. Without it, I have to wait 6 months (at least) for them to make a new distro release.
-
Wow! Your really thinking serious about this. I tried to develop several ECommerce platforms, was going to post it on Github to see if I could get some momentum going with it, but decided not to. What changed my mind was how many Angular plugins I was using, where the author gave up on it and abandoned the code. Then I had to abandon their plugin for it was no longer compatible with future version of Angular. Angular was changing so fast, that these authors couldn't keep up with Google and it's shear size compared to a single developer. And that's just a small plugin. I have a friend that develops low tech construction tools, and does quite well. I choose to develop software, and my friend runs 200x circles around me money wise. I love coding, but these low tech devices are much easier to develop and bring to market than software, and are easier to sell and cash in on. So now I sell my friends low tech stuff and I do quite well, but I still write software, hoping to cash in one day. People don't want to pay for software and think it should be free. Just like music, books, etc. But people will pay for solutions or systems based on software, if you can prove it will raise their bottom line 30% more, and increase consistency or accurately. I'm working on a Windows app that several customers wanted, for sending freight out of the warehouse to the destination. It was suppose to be a custom solution for one customer, but I changed my mind and decided to try and make this solution an asset, something I can sell over and over again, and not limit it to a single customer. I'm going to connect the data for this project to AWS, and make it cloud compatible, suggested by my friend that works for Blizzard/Activsion, who is helping me with that part. I'm not going to waste time setting this up on GitHub, nor make it open source. And I have changed how I think about my app, where it's the data and how it's structured on the cloud that has the value, and the app just allows one to use the data effectively. Then the app can be ported as a web based app as well for low volume users and a monthly fee of $15. This is a good post and thought to think about. I think for software engineers who think more like an engineer, GitHub or open source licensing is the way to monetize their work, instead thinking like a capitalist, and using other methods to monetize their work. Nice Post!
If it ain't broke don't fix it Discover my world at jkirke
Thanks for joining the conversation. Great post!!
jkirkerx wrote:
Angular was changing so fast, that these authors couldn't keep up with Google and it's shear size compared to a single developer. And that's just a small plugin.
Yes, so true. It's crazy how much work it can be to just support one component within some ecosystem.
jkirkerx wrote:
So now I sell my friends low tech stuff and I do quite well, but I still write software, hoping to cash in one day.
Very interesting and very cool that your friend creates those tools. I would love to know what the tools are and how much they sell for. If you can, provide a link. :thumbsup:
jkirkerx wrote:
But people will pay for solutions or systems based on software, if you can prove it will raise their bottom line 30% more, and increase consistency or accurately.
You have nailed it with that statement. You are totally correct. You have to give them something that they can see themselves making $$ with. I believe my SaaS will do enable that exact thing -- help others save user's encrypted remote data data easier (and then retrieve it). That's why I'm trying to protect it but I also want to share it.
jkirkerx wrote:
I'm working on a Windows app that several customers wanted, for sending freight out of the warehouse to the destination.
Sounds very interesting, good luck to you with your endeavour. Thanks again for posting. Great stuff.