Report: Pure Open Source No Longer a Viable Business Model

[Sporkman]

Report: Pure Open Source No Longer a Viable Business Model

Written by Marshall Kirkpatrick / October 13, 2008 6:38 PM

How do you make money if you give your software away for free? That's the classic question asked of Open Source software vendors and the expected reply is that they charge customers for software customization and support. That's not the way it works anymore, though, according to a report published today by analyst firm The 451 Group.

Titled "Open source is not a business model," the report challenges some long held beliefs about the technology business. Not everyone is happy with the 451 Group's conclusions, either.


http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/report_says_pure_open_source_is_not_viable.php

[paul101]

cant they make their minds up? :roll:

[SunnyRabbiera]

I know

[zmjjmz]

Open Source != Giving stuff away for free.
Cheesus friggin Chrast, it's about support and customization. Red Hat and Novell sell their software. Canonical provides support and certification (and merchandise).
Some companies actually just suck.

[lancest]

According to the GPL it's ok to sell software. The main thing is that the code must remain open and any improvements must be shared back to the community. I don't know exactly how if this applies to all types of FOSS software though. FOSS is about fighting vendor lock in.

[earthpigg]

how the hell does a company trying to sell a 71 page book for $3,750 think they can lecture and preach to anyone about viable business models?

(pssst, anyone got the torrent?) <-- j/k, of course

[original_jamingrit]

It doesn't seem very clear, but I'm pretty sure the article is just talking about desktop-end user type open source. I'm sure there would be a much greater demand for tech support once FLOSS breaks through the mainstream barrier.

Besides, lots of Open Source development has been driven by server software. Desktop Linux doesn't really do much for that community.

[cardinals_fan]

I've always liked the licensing used by Trolltech on Qt. It's available for free if you open-source whatever you write from it. If you want to write a closed-source derivative, you have to pay.

[MaxIBoy]

Just like ID Software's business model. I think it's a very acceptable compromise.

[zmjjmz]

Just like ID Software's business model. I think it's a very acceptable compromise.

I think that's a great model too. Open Source the older versions so everyone can benefit. And if a company goes out of business, IMO they should open source whatever software they made.

[TBOL3]

Here's the way I see it.

On top of the wonderful money that can be made on support, there are several other ways a company make money. Let me illustrate just one of them.

A company that sells software, releases a lot of their low level stuff as FLOSS. Because it's low level, it's harly usable to most people and companies. However, some people will like it, and develop. Because you are required to distribute the software as FLOSS, the original company can then take the modifactions, and use it, thus their getting some workers for 'free'.