[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.