I want to make the world better for people, not for Amazon.
Software doesn't run itself and corporations don't run software: human beings do.
There's no such thing as a non-human entity running software.
The only people who don't grasp this simple fact are the ones who have never worked in a corporation. They very much own and run things legally. Which is why when the liquidation man comes a knocking you don't lose your shirt for owning stock in Enron.
If the latter, let's say me and my buddy both use the software individually, legally. We sit in the same room. Ok? We are together working on some non-profit project not involving the software. Ok? Now we use the software for it. Ok? Niw we make a profit. Ok?
Where do you draw the line?
RMS would be pretty opposed to these ideas.
Not allowed.
>If the latter, let's say me and my buddy both use the software individually, legally. We sit in the same room. Ok? We are together working on some non-profit project not involving the software. Ok? Now we use the software for it. Ok? Niw we make a profit. Ok?
All allowed.
The answer to all those questions are pretty simple and straight forward. I'm not sure why you're trying to muddy the waters here.
>RMS would be pretty opposed to these ideas.
RMS has failed catastrophically in his goal of letting users have access to the source code of the applications they use. I don't really care for what he has to say.
I don't know how you can say that unless you have impossibly high standards. If it wasn't for the GPL, Intel and AMD would have had zero incentive to opensource their drivers. NVIDIA and arm drivers are still proprietary but panfrost is in development. In an alternative timeline it is plausible that none of this would have happened.
>Software doesn't run itself and corporations don't run software: human beings do.
>There's no such thing as a non-human entity running software.
People don't exist they are made up of cells.
Humans don't run themselves: cells do.
There is no such thing as a non-cell entity running humans.
> Humans don't run themselves: cells do.
> There is no such thing as a non-cell entity running humans.
Biology don't exist, they are made of atoms
Cells dont run themselvs, atoms do.
There is no such thing as a non atom entity running cells.
We has a species have a hard time trusting atoms, they make up everything.
It’s worrying, and maybe telling, that you don’t mention whom the project benefits. Who are the people who want this project to exist? Those are the people who would be willing to pay to ensure its continued existence and maintenance. Exactly what form that takes is mostly psychological, and will therefore depend on what types of other expenses those people are used to paying, and how they usually pay them.
I was trying to avoid talking about the specifics of the project (I didn't want to come across as self-promotional).
We only did our first release this week, so no one is invested in the project (yet). We have hypotheses about who it benefits but haven't had enough time to test them. Our current goal is to build a user base and that will give us the information we need to work on long term sustainability.
You mean to say you built an entire project, large enough to need “a few full-time people” to maintain it, without ever getting feedback from actual users? Chance alone almost guarantees that you built the wrong thing and nobody will want to use it.
It's interesting you mention this - Even Elastic started with this same model but then had some conflicts with Amazon being able to monetise ElasticSearch much more than Elastic themselves - so they eventually changed license and then Amazon forked into OpenSearch.. Here's the link for more context - https://www.elastic.co/blog/why-license-change-aws
Btw, wishing you best with your project!
I'm philosophically opposed to open core because tying revenue to proprietary features seems like the wrong incentive structure, I can't imagine how you'd avoid conflicts of interest. Plus, I'm building open source software because I believe in user freedom, so proprietary features leave an icky taste in my mouth.
My theory so far is that the open core model makes sense for VC-backed companies that are targeting enterprise customers. Most open core products seem targeted at enterprises, not small businesses or individuals. I assume this is because only enterprise deals can make the amount of money that VCs expect from investment. Of course, this leads to enterprise features being prioritized, which sucks for smaller organizations or people using the software.
I'd like my project to focus on meeting the needs of everyday people. I think we need more consumer focused open source software that is so well designed that it will displace proprietary SaaS software, where the incentive is to provide a service that customers get locked into. Software should be a tool, not a service.
The only project that I can think of doing a great job here is WordPress. WordPress is very easy to use, Automattic builds it, but they are not the only ones to make money from it, and I think the incentives are well-aligned.
I'm hoping I can find a similar funding model where I can build a sustainable project for everyday users without going after the enterprise market and all the sacrifices that entails. We are a non profit now and that keeps our incentives aligned with users.