Make Money Selling Open Source Software? DistroTube
video description
Date: 2022-03-30
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Julian
Thanks for this DT - it has frustrated me for so many years that FOSS devs generally just don't get that there's the option to sell the binary while making the source available. Now it's true that a great many more people using Linux (compared to other platforms) are likely to just compile it themselves, and that's cool. Meanwhile, there will still be a significant number of people who are happy to support the project for the convenience of downloading the binary. Pre-compiled code is a service because it's saving the end user time. The only thing they'd have to be careful about is being too greedy - that's the difference between feeling you're contributing versus feeling you're being scammed.
The other side of the coin is that it's arguable that there are many currently proprietary projects that could grow their user base with much the same model once they grasp that 99%, probably 99.99%, of their users are never going to bother to figure out how to compile the source code. Of course they would argue that making their code open source just hands an advantage to their competition, but I still think for certain types of currently proprietary software projects this could be beneficial.
A good example would be hardware control panel development where the company 'end of life's' the hardware by stating that they will not continue development for 'X- piece of old hardware beyond MacOS version 'Y' or Windows version 'Z' . . . . but the control panel source code is available for those who want to continue to use their old hardware or port the code to Linux. They don't have to care about the competition because the software is useless unless you own the hardware it operates. For example I use RME and Focusrite control panels that force me to use Mac or Windows to have full functionality on my hardware - but this hardware is 15+ years old !!! So open source it already!
A move like that from just one of the many audio hardware manufacturers (for e.g.) would be a massive positive for their brand image and be a genuinely eco-friendly step they could give their PR teams to sell. Knowing that a given brand routinely did this would massively influence my purchasing decisions, and with audio gear that could add up to a LOT of money for one company over their exclusively proprietary competition.
reply
Thanks for this DT - it has frustrated me for so many years that FOSS devs generally just don't get that there's the option to sell the binary while making the source available. Now it's true that a great many more people using Linux (compared to other platforms) are likely to just compile it themselves, and that's cool. Meanwhile, there will still be a significant number of people who are happy to support the project for the convenience of downloading the binary. Pre-compiled code is a service because it's saving the end user time. The only thing they'd have to be careful about is being too greedy - that's the difference between feeling you're contributing versus feeling you're being scammed.
The other side of the coin is that it's arguable that there are many currently proprietary projects that could grow their user base with much the same model once they grasp that 99%, probably 99.99%, of their users are never going to bother to figure out how to compile the source code. Of course they would argue that making their code open source just hands an advantage to their competition, but I still think for certain types of currently proprietary software projects this could be beneficial.
A good example would be hardware control panel development where the company 'end of life's' the hardware by stating that they will not continue development for 'X- piece of old hardware beyond MacOS version 'Y' or Windows version 'Z' . . . . but the control panel source code is available for those who want to continue to use their old hardware or port the code to Linux. They don't have to care about the competition because the software is useless unless you own the hardware it operates. For example I use RME and Focusrite control panels that force me to use Mac or Windows to have full functionality on my hardware - but this hardware is 15+ years old !!! So open source it already!
A move like that from just one of the many audio hardware manufacturers (for e.g.) would be a massive positive for their brand image and be a genuinely eco-friendly step they could give their PR teams to sell. Knowing that a given brand routinely did this would massively influence my purchasing decisions, and with audio gear that could add up to a LOT of money for one company over their exclusively proprietary competition.
reply
Sam
I run an integrated library system (ILS). Just as with commercial applications, ILSs are complicated applications, and there is a large dedicated cadre of volunteers to keep ours running. The ILS is open source.
A few companies have examined the code and rewritten parts, of course. So they sell the compiled executable to libraries that cannot afford an IT staff to run the open source edition. What else do they commercial companies do? They provide hosting and maintenance.
There is also one company I know of that provides instructional videos, maintenance of the open source version, consulting, and extensions.
So there are several ways to make money from open source: rewrite from top to bottom, hosting, maintenance, consulting, extensions, and instructional videos and manuals.
Not perfect but decent.
reply
I run an integrated library system (ILS). Just as with commercial applications, ILSs are complicated applications, and there is a large dedicated cadre of volunteers to keep ours running. The ILS is open source.
A few companies have examined the code and rewritten parts, of course. So they sell the compiled executable to libraries that cannot afford an IT staff to run the open source edition. What else do they commercial companies do? They provide hosting and maintenance.
There is also one company I know of that provides instructional videos, maintenance of the open source version, consulting, and extensions.
So there are several ways to make money from open source: rewrite from top to bottom, hosting, maintenance, consulting, extensions, and instructional videos and manuals.
Not perfect but decent.
reply
JacksonChen666
if i'm correct, you can sell software licensed under GPL/licenses that fall under the definition of free software. however, you can't enforce things like notifying the author on redistribution or enforcing a fee on distribution that the author wasn't involved in or didn't do, nor can you set a higher price for the source code than the original program.
with that in mind, i found software that was on the apple app store which was not free in price but free in freedom. there was source code be it costs to get the actual -binary- of the program, probably to help pay out the $99/year fee to be able to publish on the apple app store (they also require a mac and the target device in the pre-requisite so apple is making even more money in the process, i guess)
reply
if i'm correct, you can sell software licensed under GPL/licenses that fall under the definition of free software. however, you can't enforce things like notifying the author on redistribution or enforcing a fee on distribution that the author wasn't involved in or didn't do, nor can you set a higher price for the source code than the original program.
with that in mind, i found software that was on the apple app store which was not free in price but free in freedom. there was source code be it costs to get the actual -binary- of the program, probably to help pay out the $99/year fee to be able to publish on the apple app store (they also require a mac and the target device in the pre-requisite so apple is making even more money in the process, i guess)
reply
Lifeless
Selling software directly is an outdated model. What people should be selling instead should be the convenience of the distribution. You could -sell- the software on a main website, but what they are really paying for is a guarantee that the software is legit. Since the software is open source, anyone can just offer the code for free somewhere which many people will download, but not everyone would want to take a chance downloading something from some random somebody. Even if people could view the code on GitHub, not everyone that downloads it would read all the code. If people are afraid of running an executable from some torrent, why would anyone do it with free free software that the developers were not involved with?
reply
Selling software directly is an outdated model. What people should be selling instead should be the convenience of the distribution. You could -sell- the software on a main website, but what they are really paying for is a guarantee that the software is legit. Since the software is open source, anyone can just offer the code for free somewhere which many people will download, but not everyone would want to take a chance downloading something from some random somebody. Even if people could view the code on GitHub, not everyone that downloads it would read all the code. If people are afraid of running an executable from some torrent, why would anyone do it with free free software that the developers were not involved with?
reply
Trunov
That is very interesting problem. I wish there was deeper discussion.
The conclusion that code is just means to sell something else is somewhat unsatisfying.
That pretty much means that, developer, as a profession, has no future within open source.
When code is free, there are indeed no means to assure payment.
Recently there was an incident when developer sabotaged his own project because it was
used without any payment by multiple large companies. So relying on donations, did not work as well.
Overall it seems to mean that it's all fine and good to develop open source projects as a hobby,
but, if somebody wants a job as a developer, he must work in a company that develops closed source products.
reply
That is very interesting problem. I wish there was deeper discussion.
The conclusion that code is just means to sell something else is somewhat unsatisfying.
That pretty much means that, developer, as a profession, has no future within open source.
When code is free, there are indeed no means to assure payment.
Recently there was an incident when developer sabotaged his own project because it was
used without any payment by multiple large companies. So relying on donations, did not work as well.
Overall it seems to mean that it's all fine and good to develop open source projects as a hobby,
but, if somebody wants a job as a developer, he must work in a company that develops closed source products.
reply
itech
Completely disagree. You're trading financial security for unlikely cooperation. I saw what happened to Aseprite and projects like it. There is a single guy behind them doing a majority of the work meaning making it open source gave him no benefit for cooperation. All it did was make it easy to get for free, a product he felt was worth $10. So he made it closed source, problem solved. Oh except for the fact that since he made it open source already at one point most of his work is already free. So not only was going open source of no benefit, it's now an active burden as a competitor to it's own closed source version.
reply
Completely disagree. You're trading financial security for unlikely cooperation. I saw what happened to Aseprite and projects like it. There is a single guy behind them doing a majority of the work meaning making it open source gave him no benefit for cooperation. All it did was make it easy to get for free, a product he felt was worth $10. So he made it closed source, problem solved. Oh except for the fact that since he made it open source already at one point most of his work is already free. So not only was going open source of no benefit, it's now an active burden as a competitor to it's own closed source version.
reply
TUX:
Look to great success of gitlab. They have open source code, but paid services, and paid add-ons with additional advanced features. If you want better business, buy our advanced paid additional features. Framework and basement is free, add-ons and huge features are proprietary. It is still selling of code, but not exactly. If user loves this software, they can buy additional extensions, because wants to save time against write your own solution.
reply
Look to great success of gitlab. They have open source code, but paid services, and paid add-ons with additional advanced features. If you want better business, buy our advanced paid additional features. Framework and basement is free, add-ons and huge features are proprietary. It is still selling of code, but not exactly. If user loves this software, they can buy additional extensions, because wants to save time against write your own solution.
reply
BlackWorm
Ardour's model is excellent. But another great one is what Tracktion does with their Waveform software. The base software is completely FOSS and what they make money on are the necessary things in order to make great music such as the sound packs, the instruments, synths and VST plugins. And now that the internet exists, this model is actually far more lucrative than the old business model. Adobe and Microsoft's model is slowly dying.
reply
Ardour's model is excellent. But another great one is what Tracktion does with their Waveform software. The base software is completely FOSS and what they make money on are the necessary things in order to make great music such as the sound packs, the instruments, synths and VST plugins. And now that the internet exists, this model is actually far more lucrative than the old business model. Adobe and Microsoft's model is slowly dying.
reply
itech
5:15 There is some jerk, They say your work is s- in the public. And soon they copy your work even the part you did wrong. And they post to store to intend it's their own idea. (Especially asian) They say idea is many the important thing is implement it. Why they can't implement it before you, so that you can save your time, just use their work ? So their mouth full of b-s-. That is the steal in the open source world.
reply
5:15 There is some jerk, They say your work is s- in the public. And soon they copy your work even the part you did wrong. And they post to store to intend it's their own idea. (Especially asian) They say idea is many the important thing is implement it. Why they can't implement it before you, so that you can save your time, just use their work ? So their mouth full of b-s-. That is the steal in the open source world.
reply
Penguin
Another common model that some game developers use is to create a game engine and license it under an Open Source license, but the game data with the story and graphical elements being sold (most likely that will be proprietary). So pretty much anyone can use the game engine to create their own game using the engine and they can still make money selling the game iteself.
reply
Another common model that some game developers use is to create a game engine and license it under an Open Source license, but the game data with the story and graphical elements being sold (most likely that will be proprietary). So pretty much anyone can use the game engine to create their own game using the engine and they can still make money selling the game iteself.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
