But open source has absolutely worked as a business model. This is actually easier to see if you look at companies like IBM. Back around 2000, IBM used to charge $40,000/year per CPU for software that was often mediocre. But as one very smart IBM marketing guy told me, the software was basically an excuse to sell IBM Global Services for consulting and customization. At heart, they were making a service play. And IBM of the early 00s loved Linux, for two rather weird reasons:
1. It allowed them to freely collaborate with other companies like RedHat based on nothing more than a handshake.
2. Even more surprisingly, it allowed collaboration within IBM, between different groups that usually had complex politics.
I as understand it, IBM was not, generally speaking, selling Linux. Linux was just one more way to sell Global Services.
And of course, RedHat themselves were a service company in those days, at least from what I heard from some of their clients.
But service companies are hard, they're sales intensive, and they're not valued nearly as highly as pure software plays with the same revenue. And if you want to be big, you'll eventually need to serve big enterprises. And of course, AWS will happily eat any low-customization revenue you might otherwise be able to snag.
So open source + consulting might be a business model, but it relies heavily on running a successful consulting or services business.
A much more common way to use open source in business is the "stone soup" model. I've helped my employers open source tons of stuff over the years. It was almost all useful tools, not their main products, so it didn't help competitors directly. The upside is that other companies may occasionally contribute something. This is usually pretty modest unless you put in extra effort promoting your software, but it happens. Sometimes, the biggest advantage is that open sourcing a tool is a great way to draw a boundary that says, "This is a generic tool that focuses on one thing. It does not contain business logic." For certain kinds of tools, this can be a fantastic discipline.
But definitely don't think that you can release your core product as open source, and then just run a standard product-based business.
No, it isn't. It’s more or less compatible with different business models, but it itself is not a business model.
It isn't. It's a development model, which (mostly likely) has profound implications FOR your business model, but it's not a business model in and of itself.
It boggles the imagination that people are still confused about this in 2024. sigh
Ironically as some companies have already started noticing, when you stop being able to market your product as open source the start of the funnel will start to dry up. The start of the funnel is often not monitored, and the sales might even continue going up as your successful open source users go to enterprise. By the time you realise the funnel has dried up it might already be too late to turn back as competitors have filled the void you left.
Your free version should in theory just be a freemium version of your product. And your freemium version of your product should lead to paying customers and be a major way of generating leads and customers. If it's not doing that then it should be a case of do you need to stop adding so many features to the free version or is it that a free version just isn't used by enough people to even matter?
If no one is using it, then really stop building it you're just wasting your time just so you can virtue signal that it's open-source. Really, the only people who will be mad will be the ones not helping you out.
My first hand experience is that there are two likely outcomes: (1) You limit the utility of the open version to create a buying trigger and your open source users dwindle away as the open product doesn't meet their needs. Or, (2) your community has sufficient momentum to build the feature itself and your sales team starts losing deals to your open source offering.
This model also creates harmful intra-organization conflict between those who argue for short-term revenue (probably their continued employment depends on that) vs. those who argue for the largest open source user base. It also creates conflict with your users as you intentionally offer a worse product to your largest user group (open source users).
VCs are in business to do exactly one thing: make all of the possible money, forever. If that means making it "source available" and charging out the ass once you reach a certain point, they'll do it.
If they were only financially interested they would play the game with much less status bias.
User base #2 wants fully featured, fully supported, easy to use software, and doesn't care about the source code. Company wants to cater to them to make money.
Ultimately when the VC money runs out both these aims are going to be in direct conflict with each other, and you are going to have to pick a side. Companies pretty much always start by focusing on 1 (OSS contributors, enthusiasts, indie devs) and switch to 2 (corporate customers) over time. I have lost faith that any such project can walk this line successfully and stay true to group 1.
This is IMO, a major problem with VC. VC doesn't care about funding companies that are moderately profitable. They only care about companies with extreme growth that can lead to an extremely lucrative exit. Which means that viable business models that might work well with Open Source may not be attractive to VCs.
Congrats, you made what I believe is the best move a software company can do in our space. You will hear a lot of naysayers, and sure the software we build is not as permissive as Apache 2.0 and MIT. Those are all true and valid points. It's also true that VCs have perverse incentives and as a naturally skeptic myself, I understand not wanting to touch it.
Let me bring a little bit of counter-points to those:
- AGPL or Commercial Open-Source Software would probably just not exist at all if there was no path to commercialization at all. So the dichotomy between making it true MIT or AGPL is a false one, it's the choice between proprietary/no software and AGPL and I think we can all agree the latter is better. Software Engineers need to eat and there is a pool of talented engineers for whom glory is not fully sufficient and also need their work to be a reasonable financial paths. This enables more SWE to compete to build more software and make the software landscape more competitive for the benefit of the end-users.
- Taking VC money is not signing a pact with the devil that strips away your entire freedom, especially at @lucasfcosta stage and ours. The real issue is with being fully dependent on that money by having bad financial health and needing to raise in X months. COSS company like ours can stay lean and profitable, taking just the right amount of money from VC to kickstart a long-term journey to become a behemoth of a software company through having advantages over all the proprietary alternatives. Windmill for instance is profitable, and no investors has ever pressured us to go faster or monetize more. 99% of our users are using the free/open-source version but the 1% that is not is made of medium and large enterprises that hugely appreciate running their infra on open-source software that they can easily audit and contribute to. It would have been SO MUCH harder to convince them without being open-source given our size. Another fact that helps is pricing but that is also related to our open-source nature. It's harder to over-price your large customers because at a certain point they can say screw it, they will just build in-house to go above the proprietary features. All that to say that companies do have incentives but also are made of humans which have their own values and goals, and have some agenda to set their own path, especially early on. It's all about balance and I would argue taking a bit of VC money at the seed-stage at a good valuation and then not much more is the optimal path right now.
I appreciate that folks like y’all take the risk to build dope products and still do your part to open-source what you can. In an ideal world, everything would be open-source (by purist standards) with ultra-permissive licenses, but that’s, unfortunately, not the world we currently live in.
What ticks me off is freeloading on the goodwill generated by open source, for instance, by calling your license "Apache License Version 2 with the Commons Clause" or by insisting that "source available" is actually "open source". In other words, what you're trying to do here. That goodwill doesn't belong to you. Don't try to steal it, and don't be surprised when those who are invested in open source push back hard when you do.
If they are looking to invest in a company when they do technical due diligence and bring in a source code auditing company like Synopsis Black Duck any AGPL you're using is so problematic for them it can be a deal breaker. At a minimum it's such a major sticking point it can be one of the most significant things to hold up a transaction as you try to explain why it isn't as problematic as they think.
Having been through that process a couple of times I won't touch AGPL because it's such a PIA - your poison pill.
On the flip side, if they have or are investing in you and and you've made some aspect of your solution open source under AGPL they know any competitor using it is going to have challenges getting VC investment (see point above).
I died laughing at his comment later in the article. I still don’t know what his product is but to have such a broken misconception of free and open source, I really don’t want to know what he’s trying to sell.
Bill Gates from the 1990's called, he wants his FUD back.
To be more specific: What arguments can be used to show that the AGPL is a "poison pill" in the SaaS space, which couldn't have been used by Microsoft back in the 90's and early 2000's to show that GPL was a "poison pill" in the distributed software space?
Microsoft was consistently and openly opposed to open source back in the day. Now we have startups that are simultaneously claiming to be open source while using FUD to advance an essentially non-commercial interpretation of open source. It's not the same situation.
I mean they summarised that are the very beginning of their post. They're not being shy about this. The entire post is about them making money.
> But I'll be honest with you: Briefer is a VC-backed company, and it must make money.
1. "If Briefer disappears tomorrow, people can still use the software"
2. "it helps us build a strong community"
3. "by going open-source we commoditize our competitors' core functionality"
With 1), GitHub is littered with abandoned company projects that nobody forked. If people were paying for your product because they wanted managed hosting and support, they're not going to try to keep using it forked (if they even can) if there is a competitor who provides a managed hosting product. So nobody's going to keep using your product after your company dies just because it's open source.
With 2), companies almost always end up completely ignoring the "community" and just doing whatever they want. The real "community" is often just people on StackOverflow, Reddit or somewhere else, trying in vain to get someone to help them solve a problem the company won't, and usually has nothing to do with code. Even if the product is open source and a user wants to do the hard work of fixing a problem in code and submitting a PR, the company can just balk and reject it (which many companies do). So just because it's open source doesn't mean there will be support for a real community.
With 3), nothing is commoditized, because you're open-core. Like with all "open source companies", the really good features will be locked up behind a paywall. So being open source doesn't really give an advantage over competitors either.
The only good reasons to go open source are 1) there's still people out there who will get excited about the idea of open source, and use the product just for that fact alone, because they haven't been burned by an "open source company" yet, and 2) open source is a great way to attract engineering talent.
SSO is a two party system, which means even if you have everything configured perfectly, your customer can still mess up their Okta setup. And no amount of docs will stop them from doing that.
And when they mess it up, they'll blame your auth for not working. And if it's an enterprise customer that's fine. Just spend a day debugging for them. But if it's a free tier user, it creates pure headache with no upside.
"We only have 2 employees btw, we are so good"
> Some people call our strategy "open-core" and that's technically right. Still, I'd rather say that we have two pieces of software: one that is open-source and another that is not. I think that's more honest because we're not trying to hide the fact that we're selling a non-open-source version of our software.
I'm not morally opposed to open core software - and any version of more open source is valuable open source to me - but I think its important we do not conflate the two, just as we need to not conflate other approaches like source available.
An open source project can be built upon and extended by anyone, and that includes its creators.
We don’t say that an open source project is diminished because some third party productizes it and makes money. PostgreSQL is not diminished by neon or rds.
No, we continue to judge the project on its own merits. If it continues to offer value, to be compelling, well-supported, and stack up well against alternatives, then we keep using it. We don’t think “it doesn’t have all the features of rds, so screw postgres”.
If the commercial side of the project takes away from the oss side and the oss project goes downhill as a result, then that certainly is a frustrating and disappointing outcome. But when both sides are thriving, it’s a fantastic win-win.
The maintainers get to focus their full attention and passion on the project. The community gets better and better software. And people who are willing to pay for advanced or niche use cases get their problems solved too.
Summing up, the problem is not with the whole model of open core, but with specific projects and companies that get it wrong.
There’s no fundamental reason why the oss side and the product side have to be at odds. It’s just freemium, and there are countless successful and beloved freemium products out there who figured out how to get the balance right.
In general I was not commenting if they're opposed, but suggesting an Open Core project is Open Source is not truthful. "Core" is a meaningless term, and if we suggest any Open Core project is Open Source, I can easily academically argue that the majority of businesses are Open Core, thus Open Source, and we'd all agree that's not true.
This project is Open Core, and thats fine, but Open Core is not inherently Open Source, and if we're going to care about that term in some contexts (e.g. with Fair Source) we need to care about it in all contexts.
At least that's the idea OP is trying to communicate, which makes sense to me.
I like this way better than software with complicated licensing schemes, where you can only use certain packages on Wednesdays.
Furthermore, you can't even talk about the open core as a part of the closed source product, because the open core application is invariably a whole in and of itself. You could theoretically fork it, improve on it and it could have a life on its own as a 'fully' open source product. You can even make it incompatible with the closed version.
Small correction: under popular source-available licenses like the FSL, BUSL, and ELv2, you can fork, modify, and redistribute. These licenses are usually just concerned with cloud competition, which is none of those things. You can still fork, modify, and redistribute your changes, with no copy-left strings.
Still not Open Source like AGPL, but just wanted to clarify. :)
They say they have a closed source hosted offering, and an open source self-hosted offering.
It's fair to call the overall approach something like 'open core' or 'source available', but when you offer the open core under a license like AGPL, it think it's pretty hard to claim that isn't open source.
This is not a comment on "which" OSI license they used for the open part, but I will not support people calling Open Core broadly Open Source, as its not.