I hate these new "open core" freemium companies.

The best "open source " business is one that gets profit from doing something else and publishes some open source software on the side . Like react.

Open core are just companies that want to throw around the "look we are cool, open source" mantra , but in reality are dealers giving you the first dose free to hook you up in their business.

Where would we be if apache, linux, freebsd, openssl, firefox , and so many other 90s OSS had adopted that crappy model .

> The best "open source " business is one that gets profit from doing something else and publishes some open source software on the side . Like react.

How is "Be a company that harvests personal data for profit, and publishes a javascript library on the side" a good model?

And, how is it better than:

"We build this thing. It's all we do. Here's the source. If you use some features, you gotta give us money?"

What the company does is irrelevant in that example - it might as well have been IKEA publishing React and it would still stand.

Now compare your “give us money” model, or open-core, to UNIX, Linux, Firefox, and the others mentioned.

I'm happy for those companies that become commercially viable through pure open source - and those are some great examples - although they're not financially viable on their own:

- Firefox's primary income stream is embedding Google search.

- Linux is funded primarily through companies like Canonical and RedHat, which charge for premium features.

I'm sceptical that if either of those examples were to launch today, that they'd survive using the same strategies they used years ago. I'd wager that if Canonical launched today, it'd be as Open Core, which isn't far off what it's actual business model is.

However, those are great examples of companies whose primary focus is in shipping "The Thing", and finding a way to build a business around it. That's far better than making "The Thing" a side-hustle, which is what the React example was advocating.

> The best "open source " business is one that gets profit from doing something else and publishes some open source software on the side . Like react.

React only exists thanks to FB money, even though so many like to hate on FB.

The "gets profit from doing something else" is a very narrow use case for most software.

> Open core are just companies that want to throw around the "look we are cool, open source" mantra , but in reality are dealers giving you the first dose free to hook you up in their business.

Strong disagree.

There are real material benefits to companies making their source code available - lots of them are espoused in this discussion. Things like Auditability, Debuggability, etc.

These aren't about appearances, it's about giving additional benefits to the users.

But it HAS to be backed by a sustainable business model. Otherwise, it's a hobby. Open Core, and other similar models, are about delivering the benefits of open source, with the security of knowing there's a viable business model sitting behind it.

Also, as a community - we should be far more open to paying open source companies than we are. Statements like:

> but in reality are dealers giving you the first dose free to hook you up in their business.

Exactly!

It's a business. They're paying salaries of people to create things to give you value. You should pay for it.

Open Core is a really risky bet. Any dedicated developer can fork your project and add the Premium feature they like the most, and then there's nothing your company can do about it.

When people use an open source project, they usually expect everything in the project to be open source and will go to great lengths to not pay you, including sabotaging any of your efforts to try to get paid.

I think this is a great point.

I'd hate to see Open Source become even less commercially viable then it is today. I don't know the answer here, but I agree with the risks you've highlighted.

I think part of the issue is in mindsets of the community, where they see any Github source project, and immediately think "I'm entitled to use this without paying". I doubt that attitidue will shift, but I think it damages the ability for more companies to take a bet on being open.

Ultimately, when that happens - the users of the platform lose out.

> "I'm entitled to use this without paying"

Agree, this happens a lot. But the other side of that coin is the free publicity via Github and the exposure to an avid community of engineers. Something you would not get so easy with closed source.

"Profit, not usage, is a measure of success"

I pity you.

Think again when you visit a public library, ride on a public road, walk through a public park, breathe the air that's been freed from most of the 90's pollutants... what terrible failures /s

This discussion is on the topic of Commercial, Open Source software.

If a company is wholey funded by the government through taxpayer dollars (as in your examples), then I agree - profit isn't the driving consideration.

But that's not what this conversation is about.