I am thinking about open source solutions and the ROI for the developers beyond the impactful and morally gratifying feeling.
Beyond grants and donation which are not sustainable, what other options is available.
PS: I am still learning everything about open source development and solutions. This inquiry is more for products that are open sourced
The ROI is the free software
Every good work of software starts by scratching a developer's personal itch.
You don't have to pay people to scratch their own itch. However, you do have to pay people to write/work on inferior software.
reply
This is true
reply
143 sats \ 1 reply \ @ravener 28 Aug
It depends on the software, just by being open source doesn't mean you give up all rights to earn money.
One example is the Aseprite editor https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite/ it is open source and you can build it from source and use it fine, but most average people can't be bothered to build from source, and the prebuilt binary downloads are paid, many people pay for this software.
Another example is apps that may run on the cloud, you may open source it so people can self-host it, but you'd still have a centrally hosted version that's paid.
It all depends on what type of software you are trying to sell.
reply
aseprite is not the best example because it is not actually open source, but "source open", since it doesn't use an opensource license.
reply
122 sats \ 1 reply \ @beorange 28 Aug
Yes, most of the time.
You can sell your open-source software and/or services related it. You just need to provide the source and allow your customers the usual OSS freedoms.
You don't need to provide everything for free (as in free beer)
reply
Thank you for this
reply
There are several ways to monetize open source
  • Professional Services (Implementation, Support)
  • SaaS/PaaS
  • Closed source Enterprise features
reply
Thank you for this
reply
20 sats \ 1 reply \ @nullama 29 Aug
Open source is the best way to deliver software.
Closed source libraries are a pain to distribute. If you only provide binaries and not the source code you need to generate every single combination of platform and compiler, which specific versions, including all the external libraries it uses. It's simply crazy and a huge pain. One perfect example of this is CUDA from NVidia, it's a nightmare to use it because everything has to match exactly, including your OS version as the libraries needed usually come with the distribution.
With Open Source you can compile it anywhere. You also get to see what is does, and you can tweak it to fix bugs and improve it. None of that is available in closed sources.
You also can grow a community with open source, where other people fix the code and gives it back to you. Most software we have today is based on open source.
In terms of money, then it depends on your specific project. Open source has no limitations on making money. You just have to generate value with it so that people want to pay. A simple example would be selling the compiled version of your open source code, but there are multiple ways of doing it. You could have a "Community Version" open source and have extras paid, etc.
reply
Open source seems to favour large corporations as a distribution mechanism rather than an incumbent.
How does one navigate that early stage storm
reply
Once you have a monumental idea, a lot of people in the community will notice the potential. If you are just someone whom is so insecure about coding skills, software deployment skills, software development life cycle skills you will just end up like the supposed coder of a jumping fish game and then disappears without an update.
reply
Making your software open source probably quite heavily depends on how much of an ideologue you are. That is, if you don’t have a solid business model behind doing so. Many big corpo projects like Facebook’s React are open source as a way to get free work from other developers, and developers are happy to do so because they like using React.
As others have said, offering your software in its entirety as self hosted if its a cloud option, and then just be the best and most authoritative source for hosting it if people don’t want to go through the self-hosted hassle.
Other reasons may include being a personal project that you want help with, similar to the previously mentioned React model.
Some may do so as a “giving back” model. Many coders know their success wouldnt have happened without open source. They enjoy coding, dont need the money and viola.
Another incentive is perhaps you have an employer or client who is paying you for work. If you have a strong negotiating position, you can make your contract stipulate that some or all code be made open source.
reply
Thank you for this input
reply
20 sats \ 1 reply \ @BITC0IN 29 Aug
its not "worth it"
get a real job, contribute to your passion projects on the side.
don't expect much from open source
reply
I'll manage my expectations properly
reply
Adding to what k00b said, the open-source model is suitable for economically sustainable business if you use it essentially to make your product a standard and to make it easier to be tailored by the consumer. Then it can be so convenient that entire companies can develop around it. My golden example is Prusa, the 3D printer manufacturer, who made every single aspect of the product 100% open-source: both hardware and software. In doing so their designs became so ubiquitous that it became the de-facto standard, with all of the convenience that that brings with it in the technical world: abundance of both high quality documentation, experienced operators and higly knowledgeable communities. Calibration profiles are mercilessly battle tested so you can profit from infinite previous experience. And in any case, you're never locked to the vendor on anything: neither what you buy nor what you learn are vendor-specific. That did not but to allow a first niche to grow from tech-savvy people that in turn encouraged non-technical people to buy the machine directly from Prusa out of trust. The result has been a model to follow.
Now, it's not really an unexpected result. For example, the industry of flow-meter manufacturing is 100% standardized. It's not a law by any means, yet people do it anyways so to be fully compatible within the specific technical field. The standard is "open-source" in the sense that's freely available for everyone to be able to manufacture devices according to standard. Yet in despite of no intellectual property being possible there, the industry thrives. That's because, as k00b pointed out, profit is not in the standard itself (or "the code" if you will) but in the added value around it: manufacturing, calibration, assistance, etc.
If you think about your code as an ISO standard you can download from the web to use for a product, then you will always see if you're heading towards profit or not. If your project ends with the development of the standard (i.e. the code in itself), then you don't have a business model and will depend on charity.
reply
This is quite insightful... Thank you
reply
My pleasure :)
My recent addition to Prusa is Espressif, which is the company behind the famous and venerable ESP32 board, fully open-source hardware and software. The reason? The exact same as Prusa, leading them to become THE world provider on open-source boards, so much that the ESP32 ranks at the top regarding performance/price ratio.
Another addition to already existing open-source companies are all the ones around ISO standards, fasteners to name the most common: screws are 100% standardized from the very material up, yet providers thrive.
reply
30 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 28 Aug
It depends on the software. If the code is all that's needed to easily receive all the code's value, which is rarely the case, then it might not be worth it.
reply
This, exactly.
reply
I haven't thought about it from this angle...
Where the "value" reside, is where the conviction and sustainability will come from...
Thank you
reply
I am telling that you have to be a Linux Kernel programmer to finally feel the rewards that you are longing for. Open source is a hit and miss thing but if you finally hit it off you will be surprised. More than you will ever know.
reply