PDA

View Full Version : How to sell Free/OpenSource software?



mardurhack
November 10th, 2010, 09:58 AM
Hi! I'm wondering if there is a way to sell OpenSource software (I'd avoid to talk about Free Software because its "ethical" values annhilates the below conditions) by joining the technical goodies of it and the modern consumer market. I'll explain it better:
I'm trying to understand if is possible (and convenient) to sell (regardless if it is open or free or "non-closed") software which respect these conditions:
1) The source must be available to who buy it, the user can view it, study it, modify it (for personal and only personal purposes) and recompile it, but...
2) The user cannot redistribute it (or a derivative of it), both as source or binary, without asking for permission to the producer (who is allowed to ask for "royalties" or thing like that). (This to avoid that the developer/company who developed the software gets bankrupted!).

I think (but I might be wrong! This is the reason why I'm asking here) that this model could be a "half-way" to spread Open Source software (not necessarily in the definition of OSI) and, in the meanwhile, gaining money with it! I know this goes in contrast with the FS "principle" of free redistributing, this is why I can't call it "Free Software" (or FORMERLY OpenSource according to OSI).

Yes why...No why... :P Thank you in advance!

PS: I want to remind you I'm talking about "consumer" market, so don't think about Red-Hat (and similar) business plan. Or, if you think about it, explain why and how, according to you, it could be "adapted" to the consumer market. Thanks!

theraje
November 10th, 2010, 10:01 AM
You can technically do it, as long as you charge only for media and handling costs. There are a couple of businesses in the US that specialize in selling media with FOSS software on it. For example, on-disk.com will sell you CDs/DVDs/USB-flash-drives with whatever FOSS you want on it. They also sell pre-made media, such as discs for many, many different Linux distributions.

Paqman
November 10th, 2010, 10:12 AM
You need to offer some kind of skill set or support to go with the software. Your customer will be paying for the convenience of having an expert do it all for them.

Just look at big open source projects like MySQL. Sure, any company could just download it and set it up themselves, but a lot would rather pay to have the experts install, configure and maintain it for them. Consumers are like that too. You need to be offering them something attractive and convenient enough that they'll pay you for your time.

slackthumbz
November 10th, 2010, 10:35 AM
Hi! I'm wondering if there is a way to sell OpenSource software (I'd avoid to talk about Free Software because its "ethical" values annhilates the below conditions) by joining the technical goodies of it and the modern consumer market. I'll explain it better:
I'm trying to understand if is possible (and convenient) to sell (regardless if it is open or free or "non-closed") software which respect these conditions:
1) The source must be available to who buy it, the user can view it, study it, modify it (for personal and only personal purposes) and recompile it, but...
2) The user cannot redistribute it (or a derivative of it), both as source or binary, without asking for permission to the producer (who is allowed to ask for "royalties" or thing like that). (This to avoid that the developer/company who developed the software gets bankrupted!).

I think (but I might be wrong! This is the reason why I'm asking here) that this model could be a "half-way" to spread Open Source software (not necessarily in the definition of OSI) and, in the meanwhile, gaining money with it! I know this goes in contrast with the FS "principle" of free redistributing, this is why I can't call it "Free Software" (or FORMERLY OpenSource according to OSI).

Yes why...No why... :P Thank you in advance!

PS: I want to remind you I'm talking about "consumer" market, so don't think about Red-Hat (and similar) business plan. Or, if you think about it, explain why and how, according to you, it could be "adapted" to the consumer market. Thanks!

What your proposing is technically possible, you'll probably have to write your own license cos you simply can't do it under the GPL.

However, I would suggest that it's also against the principles of open source (in terms of restricting redistribution) also you lose out on the massive benefits that can be gained from allowing it to be fully open in terms of user contributions upstream.

Just doesn't seem ethical IMO but then I'm an FL/OSS die hard.

mardurhack
November 10th, 2010, 12:54 PM
Thank you all for your answers! I know this could be against the FS ethics. But I hope this is a "free" forum too! :P I admit I'm not interested in "ethics" (I have my own ideas about it) but I'm really interested in how to join the "viewable source" (I'd not call it Open anymore) with the "consumer market". May I still post here?

Offering assistance is suitable for some companies intrested in "ad-hoc" software. But I think it's not compatible with "consumers". People wouldn't rather need assistance! :P They want a ready-to-use product which respect some standards (I'd also say RTFM but not everyone wants to read a manual to use a product, this is sad...But true). I know, I know...is "laziness" but hey...[ECONOMY-MODE on] If you want to sell you should respect people's wishes shouldn't you? [ECONOMY-MODE off] :P

Sorry for my "pragmatism"... :(

3rdalbum
November 10th, 2010, 12:59 PM
I know a lot of people will hate to hear this, but I recommend an 'open core' approach. That is, the basic product is open source, and you sell plug-ins and extensions to make the software more useful. Canonical does something similar with Landscape - you can deploy Ubuntu for free across as many machines as you want, but it's only really manageable with Landscape.

The best thing is that someone will inevitably write an open source extension to replicate the functionality of your commercial part. So there is strong competition to create new features.

Paqman
November 10th, 2010, 01:46 PM
Offering assistance is suitable for some companies intrested in "ad-hoc" software. But I think it's not compatible with "consumers". People wouldn't rather need assistance! :P They want a ready-to-use product

That can be where your competitive advantage is though. If a piece of software is complicated or difficult to install and configure, then you could sell them a package which is either pre-configured for them, or that include scripts that do the configuration automatically. Or you could create a new interface for it, which may or may not be under the same licence.

It really depends on the software though. If you want to make money, you'll need to pick something that has an opportunity for you to add some value.

tjandracom
November 10th, 2010, 02:09 PM
you can also make a new software that is propietary (and sell it) using any library/compiler that is licensed under LGPL.

98cwitr
November 10th, 2010, 03:33 PM
FOSS + support = profit

Simian Man
November 10th, 2010, 03:43 PM
I think the question is, why would this "half-way" model be useful? As a programmer, the only reason I care about the source code is so that I can incorporate it into another project and distribute that according to my whims. With your model that isn't possible, so why else should I care about the source? Just because?

Basically if you want to make a profit, I'd suggest going with a closed-source commercial licesnse. Perhaps you can do what id did with some of their games and open source it once you've made most of your profits.


FOSS + support = profit

He already said this was for consumer software. How often are you willing to pay for support for consumer software??

Santaji
November 10th, 2010, 03:53 PM
Not sure about selling open source software, but i think canonical should encourage paid apps for Ubuntu, as i think this would result in more high quality apps available.

3Miro
November 10th, 2010, 03:56 PM
I think the question is, why would this "half-way" model be useful? As a programmer, the only reason I care about the source code is so that I can incorporate it into another project and distribute that according to my whims. With your model that isn't possible, so why else should I care about the source? Just because?

+1

There is the "know what you have installed" issue, so you can technically spend a lot of money and resources to make sure the software is working properly. Which is kind of pointless. Then if you find a problem with the code, you can fix it for yourself, but you cannot share your bugfixes and you cannot benefit from other's bugfixes. This is not "half-way", without the right to redistribute your changes this is pure proprietary software.

The only one of the freedoms that I am willing to forgo is the freedom to redistribute the "unchanged" version of the program and that is only for non-vital software like games (kernel, drivers, system tools, development tools as well as various net clients must be 100% FOSS).

pookiebear
November 10th, 2010, 11:09 PM
nvm

czr114
November 10th, 2010, 11:14 PM
Sell the support, and charge for your time and labor. That can't be infinitely reproduced at almost zero cost like software can.

mardurhack
November 11th, 2010, 12:04 AM
Wow! too many answers! :P I'll try to gather the main points:

1) The "company" model of selling assistance instead of the software itself, IMO, is not suitable for consumers (as someone else said). Because people don't want to "have to ask" for assistance. They want a ready-to-use software and don't need ad-hoc one. What they care is compatibility with the most today used technology: web browser, email, video/audio streaming/playing and stuff like this. (If you think differently please let me know! This is just my opinion ;) )

2) Selling software with a "viewable source" (I'd not call it Open or Free) which has restrictions about what you can and cannot redistribute is NEARLY proprietary software. It isn't open, it isn't free but it isn't proprietary either!

Free and Open: free to study, redistribute (keeping it free or not depending on if we talk about Free or Open) and modify the source.

Proprietary: You CANNOT view nor study nor change nor redistribute the source code...

What I mean: You CAN view/study/modify source but you're not free of redistributing it without an explicit permission from the producer/author. Who could apply royalties anyway.

3) What makes GREAT Open source is, indeed, the possibility to share the code (and bugfixes or patches or derivatives by consequence). Infact I'm just wondering if an approach of this kind to "selling" "viewable source" software could or could not be a success. And why.

I'm asking for this because I've read of many people here who started a company based on Free Software which went bankrupt because TONS of people downloaded their software without giving out a miserable cent...And because when you read the first lines of FAQs from FSF about "selling Free software" it appears to be "simple" and "successfull"...Then you read you're not allowed (if releasing under GPL) to avoid that someone could clone and re-sell/give-away your own software without paying anything...This seems absurd to me (not to my "spiritual" me of course who thinks the best world would be the one where people act as a big unique eco-system...But the real world is, sadly, pretty different :( for now at least).

@Paqman: I don't get it... What do you mean by "adding value" to a software?

Potential Business User
July 7th, 2012, 07:26 AM
Ubuntu's legal pages seem to have conflicting information about redistribution for commercial purposes.
For example, if I were to provide a service to companies to help them migrate from Windows to Ubuntu, and charge only for time but give them Ubuntu CDs for free, do I need a license for this?
Ubuntu's trademark policy seems to prohibit this unless the desktop, etc. has had all Canonical's trademarks removed.

I just want to start a business to install Linux on old copmany machines. Must I pay for the right to do this, since not everything ubuntu is under the GPL?

Is the only way to avoid license fees to use, say Trisquel or OEM versions of Mint?

Thanks!

hansdown
July 7th, 2012, 08:01 AM
Hi,Potential Business User. Welcome to the forum.

Redhat linux has every business want and desire, that most people might need.

Providing ubuntu CDs, for a price, + (cough) help in transitioning from MS, might sound "world changing good", but it is covered in the basic licence.

http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/licensing

Hint: Advertising fees are, (cough}, not money making oppotunities, for third and fourth party "non-contributing parties".

sffvba[e0rt
July 7th, 2012, 08:12 AM
Ubuntu's legal pages seem to have conflicting information about redistribution for commercial purposes.
For example, if I were to provide a service to companies to help them migrate from Windows to Ubuntu, and charge only for time but give them Ubuntu CDs for free, do I need a license for this?
Ubuntu's trademark policy seems to prohibit this unless the desktop, etc. has had all Canonical's trademarks removed.

I just want to start a business to install Linux on old copmany machines. Must I pay for the right to do this, since not everything ubuntu is under the GPL?

Is the only way to avoid license fees to use, say Trisquel or OEM versions of Mint?

Thanks!

I would suggest contacting Canonical (http://www.canonical.com/about-canonical/contact) to get the answers you seek.

Old thread closed.


404