Towards A Real Business Model For Open-Source Software

[beniwtv]

Note that only the closed-source patches for a previous build are released after a 5-year time limit

Yeah, and after 5 years the Open Source project will have moved on with it's codebase so that your patches don't apply to a recent build anymore. FAIL.

Sorry, but this guy really should read up on Open Source development.

[Xilanaz]

Innovation can now come from anywhere and be paid for. Someone might read the source for a web browser and come up with a great new compression scheme to lessen network traffic. This outsider would then code up his method, contact the hybrid-source vendor and license his source to them, to be sold as a closed-source patch on the software. Of course, his patch will also be open sourced after 18 months.

But until those 18 months are over nobody knows exactly what that code been doing, and nobody could fix potential flaws of build on top of that idea, which I feel is a big part of what is so great about the open source world.

What if there is a security flaw, who will fix it ? the original programmer (if he is still around) or the hybrid-source vendor (if they got the skills for it)

What if this security flaw is fixed by the original programmer after say 6 months, what source will then be opened after 18 months, the original or also the patch which was added 6 months later ?

[Nighthog]

I feel like this is kinda wrong way to go. The time delays are to long. If the closed source branch would be acceptable they would need to continuously update their branch at same time as the open source branch goes along to keep up and not to loose compatibility between the two as time goes on. And whit the open community not able to peer into the closed and what they do it's a lot of work for the enclosed side to do.

What I see is that some company etc hires programmers to incorporate and add the features or programs they want and they then work on the code and release open source patches as they go along and are adding the features and such to the main open program.

Open source doesn't go along well whit trying to make a profit from selling a product.

You could maybe get it to work if you make a distribution copy that you sell for like 6months and then you release the new version and at same time make the old version open source. And like that you keep going onward. Releasing new versions whit latest "trinkets" for sale and then giving it away as you have new stuff come out.
As it's a decent pace as new stuff comes about maybe the community doesn't feel it necessary to branch away. Though they can then always work whit the older open code to see improvements and add other features and maybe have the sellers incorporate it, but then you will be giving free work of code to the "sellers" to profit for your work. Unless they hire you as they may see the potential of that code/work you might have done.
But this is hugely dependant that you have short wait times in which you release new versions and updates and have that old version really getting out to the community. If you start slaking you will soon have competition whit a alternative free open version whit much of the same features though maybe slightly out of date, maybe lacking few new features but they then could always make their own versions... Soon you will have the free version eat your costumers.

[KAMiKAZOW]

Well, look how much BSD are installed on Desktops. How much Linux is installed on desktop. The percentage is similar to windows vs linux.

This means BSD has failed to become a desktop system and will always fail, unlike Linux, untill it switches to GPL.

Hmm.... Mac OS X is a BSD. It just has a custom GUI slapped on it (Aqua GUI with Cocoa frameworks instead of GNOME with GTK or KDE Plasma with Qt).
Last time I checked Mac OS X exceeded Linux' desktop market share by far.

[crispy]

Put donate buttons in the Software Center and bounties in Launchpad.

Don't resort to being jerks until other options have at least been /attempted/, seriously.

My thoughts also. Though this might affect innovation as it removes coders incentive to program stuff that no one knows they need...

[it87k]

here are some business models that might work with GPL software:

Classical service & support, training
Charging for additional features (virtualBox)
A modell where the software gets freed after collecting money
Selling proprietary licenses (owner of Copyright)
Buidling a platform (e.g. bundling OS with music shop)
licensing ISV applications or programmers/admins



Sources of patches that are available after 5 years are useless. But who cares about freedom of BSD users, right ? Try doing that with GPL-Software...

[crazycheese]

Hmm.... Mac OS X is a BSD. It just has a custom GUI slapped on it (Aqua GUI with Cocoa frameworks instead of GNOME with GTK or KDE Plasma with Qt).
Last time I checked Mac OS X exceeded Linux' desktop market share by far.

MacOSX opensource? No.
How many blobs? MANY.
Does it steal from BSD code. Yes.

5% vs 1.5% isnt by far.
On servers?
On supercomputers?
By far!

[crazycheese]

I wrote the original article, I thought I'd respond to some of the misguided comments I'm seeing here.

crazycheese, it is true that linux is installed on more desktops than pure BSD, but there's no way the ratio is the same as Windows to linux. If you count Mac OS X as BSD because of its BSD userland, BSD has way more desktops than linux. If you think BSD-licensing is just giving away your work, how is GPL any better? You think IBM cares whether they take your GPL work or BSD work? At least with the BSD license, anyone is free to close up sections and build a real business off the code: that is the true freedom that the BSD license allows. I am well aware that open source is about not reinventing the wheel (did you even read my piece?) but that won't get you anywhere if there's no money behind it, as we've seen with the continual failure of desktop linux and pretty much any open source business so far, outside the enterprise consulting niche. Thanks for the list of open source "models" but those aren't business models, which is what I'm talking about. If you think open source is god, it is clear this whole discussion is lost on you.

Eh, misguided?
The ratio is SAME.
Go to distrowatch, add all linux distro hits per any time you want.
Take BSD hits per any time you want.
Calculate the percentage. True it isnt only desktop and it isnt only distrowatch, but 1.5% vs 0.05% is fun, aint?

I dont count MacOS as a BSD, unless it is for free. We are talking about opensource, no? Darwin is not a system.

GPL is PROTECTING your work from being stolen. It protects your intellectual property from being missused. With BSD everyone is free to lock source down and steal for free. This aint freeom, this is anarchy!

Yes IBM cares about license. It wont fund any development if it knows the results are going to be stolen. They do GPL and own proprietary work for stuff they want to have locked inside the company.

Wikipedia as community project lacking money?

Opensource is GOD, or please stay with windows which is FAIL as an OS. I VERY DOUBT the only license you plan to use BSD? If you are not using BSD-only license, why talk about opensource? Talk about proprietary and stealing code!

Thank you, Mr Misguided!

[waucka]

ModplanMan, I'm well aware of Red Hat and Fedora, what's your point? Let me show you some actual numbers. In the last 4 quarters, Red Hat brought in $750 million in revenues, Microsoft brought in $60 billion: that is almost two orders of magnitude more. Red Hat isn't some new startup either, it's been around 17 years. If there were so much money in open source, they'd be making it by now and grabbing huge market share.

Are you seriously comparing Red Hat's revenue to the revenue of a monopoly whose software is the only choice when purchasing a computer from the vast majority of OEMs? It's easy to "earn" $60 billion per year when most of your customers are basically forced to buy your product.

[JeanPaul145]

While I am very intrigued by the idea, I do think a separate license would be needed that *forces* the developer in question to Open Source their closed patches after a little while (and not 5 years when the tech is hopelessly outdated and, if it is important enough, already reimplemented by FOSS coders), and this property should be viral (kinda like copyleft) - it's AFAIK the only way to avoid a "hostile takeover" of the code.

Also, other people's concerns are valid ones if you ask me - things like security patches for instance.

Yeah, and after 5 years the Open Source project will have moved on with it's codebase so that your patches don't apply to a recent build anymore. FAIL.

Sorry, but this guy really should read up on Open Source development.

That doesn't matter - the *technology* is open source, so even if the patch doesn't apply cleanly, you can still figure out what exactly went on on that old code (remember that was already FOSS) and re-implement it on the new codebase.

Eh, misguided?
GPL is PROTECTING your work from being stolen. It protects your intellectual property from being missused. With BSD everyone is free to lock source down and steal for free. This aint freeom, this is anarchy!

Do your homework. Mass stealing is *nothing* like anarchy, it's just mass stealing. In fact, FOSS developed by the Bazaar model is more like anarchy in the sense that normally there is no central authority. The closest thing to that would be the person who contributes the most, but even then that "status" wouldn't come with central authority.