[tolmasky]

If you make your project open source, your goal should be maximizing people using it, not maximizing how much you profit from it. I know they may seem identical, but they aren't: Apple makes a lot of money by making software that has huge roadblocks to using it. And as many people are now realizing, open source has the ability to not make lots of money by making it incredibly easy for anyone to use.

We all benefit greatly from Linux, and I think most people have not contributed back to it in any meaningful way, monetary or otherwise. A lot of these projects only exist because they were built on top of other Open Source solutions with no expectation to give them any sort of "cut". Had Linus decided he actually wanted to start a hardware business and then got angry that IBM was better at putting Linux on metal than he was, it would be similar to this situation and I think most of us would be unhappy about a bunch of turmoil resulting from that. But when it's someone else's ideas that are being used for free, they always seem obvious and fundamental, when its your own, it's unique and unfair.

As others have said here, it is OK to say "wait a minute, I want something different", and then do something different. What is not OK is wanting to water down the definition of the term open source so that whatever thing you want to do still gets to use it. The OSI's position here is perfectly reasonable -- that doesn't mean you can't invent some new kind of license or relationship. People forget that OSI had to work to get into industry in the first place, it wasn't automatically accepted. It is somewhat funny and ironic that others now want to benefit from this work while doing something completely different.

[roenxi]

> If you make your project open source, your goal should be maximizing people using it, not maximizing how much you profit from it.

Dangerous ground telling people what their goals should be. There is no reason a person shouldn't try to maximise their profits from open source strategies. The Linux example is not a strong one - lots of the kernel devs are for-profit and Linus Torvalds made a fortune [0] - likely linked to his involvement in Linux. With benefit of hindsight it is hard to see how he could have better optimised for profit.

The key insight for commercial OSS is that maximising profit does not necessarily mean maximising your paying userbase size. 10 users paying $10,000 a month easily trumps 1000 users paying $10. And going OSS as a commercial strategy (eg, Red Hat's classic model) gives competitive advantages if you can lever it - no risk of being undercut by a cheaper software package, ability be very selective in who you offer support to and an obvious strategy for wheedling in to new markets.

In the initial rush where computers were being changed out every 5 years (pre 2003 era), having software to sell was where the advantage was. Now the industries are starting to mature and that is no longer as obvious it once was. The money seems to be in support and ongoing relationship fees, which are very amenable to OSS.

So basically, if someone's goal is to maximise profits they should consider making their software open source. Especially if they are breaking in to an incumbent's market.

[0] https://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celebrity-business/...

[tolmasky]

The question is not whether the author made a fortune, but whether they were upset that tremendous more value was captured by others. I’m sure Amazon has made way more money on AWS last year by leveraging Linux than Linus has in his entire life. Now the analogy is exactly 1-to-1 compatible: Amazon offers Linux as a service, Amazon offers MongoDB as a service. If you want another analogy: more value was captured by Github (and Microsoft) from Git than Linus. Again, from offering the software as a service.

It is fine to try to leverage the properties of open source to make profits, just don’t be surprised when it doesn’t, on its own, do so. That is what is meant by my first statement: “open source will absolutely help you gain traction, it will not necessarily help you capture value”. As such, if you use open source, the goal best served is gaining users. Don’t be surprised when it doesn’t make you a ton of money.

[koonsolo]

> If you make your project open source, your goal should be maximizing people using it, not maximizing how much you profit from it.

Then it has failed miserably at it. For almost each open source project, there is a closed source that has more users. Windows, iPhone, Photoshop, etc.

Making money is a great way to invest in marketing, and reach a broader audience.

Remark that I'm typing this on my Linux desktop, so I'm definitely not opposed to OS.

In my opinion, the biggest benefit is that you have more ownership, because you're able to make modifications and improvements without being blocked by 1 company. I for one, will always avoid closed sourced libraries. I had way too many blocking issues in the past, so I prefer libraries where I can fix things as fast as I want to.

[tolmasky]

I do not believe Windows has more users than Linux, nor does iPhone. Android has more users than iPhone, and Linux has more users than Windows in the server space. Open source browsers are so successful they’ve now officially eliminated closed source browsers on the desktop (arguably on mobile too if we’re just counting engines). So I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that open source is failing miserably at maximizing people using it.

[blub]

And who do you think you are to dictate to others what something as deeply personal as their goals should be?

This must be one of the most arrogant things I've read on HN.

[tolmasky]

If OP feels it is there place to insist what the OSI should label as open source, then they open themselves up to the should game.

Also, this is meant more as a “if you do X, expect Y” statement. If you open source, expect high uptake not profit. The same way someone might say “If you’re using a hammer, your project should have nails.” I would be surprised to have someone retort “who are you to dictate whether my project should have nails?!”. Similarly, if someone complained in an Ogre forum that the framework wasn’t helpful in making a spreadsheet app, I might say “if you’re using a physics game engine, you should be writing a game not a utility app”.

You can set whatever goal you want, but as the author of this very article agrees with, open source is not going to be good when one of those goals is maximizing profit. Unless of course, if we change the definition of open source.

[pfortuny]

The simplest example of this is TeX and MetaFont, MetaPost. The only aim of Knuth was getting people to use them. One was, the other two not so much.

And he has not complained that I know of.

[wmf]

Knuth is subsidized by Stanford (and maybe book royalties); not everyone is so lucky.