[wpietri]

Not at all. Closed source isn't a business model either.

A business model is where you figure out who will give you money in exchange for value delivered. If you need money, you probably should think about that. And then you'll need to spend some time on execution of that plan.

I get that programmers just want to make things and have people use them. I feel that too. But pretending that "open source" is a business model is essentially just denying economic reality. It's the same thing when young artists grumble about having to earn a living somehow when they'd rather just be creating art.

People can definitely make a living with open-source software. But it doesn't happen by magic, any more than it does with closed-source software. It takes thought and work. That work is grubby and mundane and a bit banal, but it has to get done.

[anigbrowl]

Closed source is a business model because the customer wants what your software does but can't see how it's achieved, so they pay you money to buy a license instead of just re-implementing it.

[wpietri]

No.

I have a ton of closed-source software in my projects folder. That's not a business model. Neither is open-source software, where I take some of that stuff and throw it up on GitHub.

A business model is where I repeatably create value for others and receive money in exchange. A modern software company can do that in a variety of ways, including selling training, documentation, support, custom features, consulting, services, and licensing.

Both open- and closed-source companies do that. They have business models. But open source on its own is not a business model, and neither is closed source.

And what's definitely not a business model is releasing something as open source and hoping that somebody gives me money. Businesses don't just happen. Somebody has to build them.

[pjmlp]

The difference with open source, is that I can take you out of business with the code you wrote yourself.

[wpietri]

Sure, there are differences, but I'm not sure that's one of them. Can you name some companies where that has happened? I'm pretty sure I can name a lot more where it hasn't.

[pjmlp]

I don't keep track of it.

It is however a possibility.

[ccozan]

The biggest counter-example is RedHat.

[pjmlp]

You mean CentOS and Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel ?

[anigbrowl]

Repetition of your assertions isn't an argument.

I make some software. You like what it does and want to use it. I ask for money. If the price is right you give me cash and I give you an executable file.

How is that not a business model?

And what's definitely not a business model is releasing something as open source and hoping that somebody gives me money. Businesses don't just happen. Somebody has to build them.

I never claimed open source was a business model. I said the inability to easily monetize OSS is a limiting factor on its development because people need to eat and pay rent.

[wpietri]

If you are now saying that open source is not a business model, then we agree. As far as I could tell, you were arguing vigorously that it was.

> I make some software. You like what it does and want to use it. I ask for money. If the price is right you give me cash and I give you an executable file. How is that not a business model?

That business model is selling executables that let your customers do some unspecified thing they care about. I have paid money to people who give me executables for both open- and closed-source software, so that description applies to both.

Making and releasing open-source software to the public, though, is not a business model. Which is why the Octave developer is struggling.

> I said the inability to easily monetize OSS is a limiting factor on its development because people need to eat and pay rent.

Right. But that's not specific to open-source software. Needing to eat, etc, is a limiting factor on making all software. And making almost anything else.