[nonethewiser]

If your value can be completely replicated by cloning your repo and self hosting then I think that’s maximally useful for open source but leaves no reason for you to exist. Meanwhile if you can open source your software and protect your profits then your software isn’t actually that valuable.

I suppose there may be some exceptions but generally speaking I think it’s an inverse relationship. And it’s basically the same “problem” of open source maintainers not being able to make a living off open source. It feels like we’re in denial about free software being free.

[ahepp]

Aren't dual licensing and support contracts kinda solutions to these problems? They're certainly not perfect though.

[DannyBee]

For the latter, Not everything has a high enough recurring engineering cost to make reasonable money.

Lots of things simply have high non recurring initial developmemt cost.

Lots of things are also done enough at some point. Not everything requires constant new things.

In these cases the main value over replacement is upfront dev cost of whatever features they need (not what you provide)

That is probably not going to make you money, even if it took you a long time, as it is a fairly fixed cost

open source also sucks at making products rather than projects, and then complains they can't often make money doing it. That is actually true outside open source too.

[judge2020]

> It feels like we’re in denial about free software being free.

As always, it's free as in freedom, but also free as in your company taking a beer from the cold hands of the solo maintainer.

[ahepp]

Maybe I misinterpreted this, but I think they're saying the person in denial is the maintainer. As in, if you want to get paid for something, don't give it away for free.