Comments on: A time to reap, a time to sow: A phased approach for open-source businesses

Perhaps there's not one business model that is always right, but rather a phased approach to licensing that changes as one's need to monetize the software changes.

[jsoltero]

Great post, Matt. As you know from our numerous conversations in the past, this is the reason why Hyperic's business model is set up the way it is. Most companies have the benefit of being able to spend a lot of time "reaping" and worrying less about "sowing". (See my previous ran^H^H^Hcomments about downloads vs. dollars). For us, the task of driving both almost simultaneously has been one of our biggest challenges, and one which we've made many adjustments to throughout the years. In every case, the adjustment included giving more into the community based product as we continue to deliver value around the core.

The way we've done it is by developing a short, simple ethos for deciding which things are included as part of our subscription:

- Reliability
- Intelligence
- Scale

Now, it doesnt mean that our open source product isnt reliable, scalable, or intelligent. Far from it (check with the thousands of companies that use HQ Open Source in production). Instead, it means we know where to put the value that allows us to continue to build excellent, GPL-based software and live to tell the tale. These elements also incorporate some non-feature parts of our subscription. For example, our support offering helps with reliability and scale, and our ability to provide commercial indemnification means you can reliably count on a company to protect your use of the software.

I know this recipe doesnt work for every company. That said, I believe that if you indeed subscribe to the 'reap then sow' argument you're providing here. The best way to do it is to be transparent about how you make your choices.

Again, great post.
-javier

[Savio.Rodrigues]

Matt, you had me until:

> It may well enable the company to offer its core open-source project under the most liberal of licensing terms.

Few companies behind a single-vendor controlled OSS project would risk losing control of their code. SpringSource is about the only example I can think of that went the APL route in recent history....and the book is not yet closed on that story.

BSD-style licenses really only make sense for projects with multiple vendors who each have a stake in the project's direction.

Also, it's good to see that your aversion to proprietary is beginning to wear off, if even a little ;-)

Don't worry, I'll convince you yet that proprietary is going to be the savior of the OSS business model. And when this happens, don't worry, I won't dig up all those posts about burning boats or how OSS vendors care about customers while proprietary vendors don't. We're all here to serve customers and make some $$$. :-)

Savio

[tristanbob]

Neat ideas, Matt. I think you are right that this model could be used successfully to build a community, and then sustain the community by making money and strengthening the core. All parties benefit, which is similar to the invisible hand of capitalism.

Am I getting the impression that you like the Apache licence more then GPL?