[HN Gopher] Selling open-source software ___________________________________________________________________ Selling open-source software Author : webmaven Score : 139 points Date : 2023-08-15 13:58 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (thenewstack.io) (TXT) w3m dump (thenewstack.io) | datadrivenangel wrote: | The gem of a quote at the end captures good sales technique | perfectly: "It's literally saying, What is it you're trying to | achieve, and by when? And yes, I can help you do that." | [deleted] | zkirby wrote: | As the founder of an OSS company (granted we're seed stage), moat | is becoming more and more of a concern, especially because: 1. | There are more saas companies (read: competition) than ever 2. AI | has made it significantly easier to build on-the-fly | transpilation | | Didn't see that mentioned in the article, but it's worth noting | omeze wrote: | The truth is that people who are fine operating and managing | their own ElasticSearch/Postgres/Spark whatever cluster are not | the people who will be buying the SaaS offering. Theres no point | trying to convert those people, theyll convert themselves once | they get tired of constantly upgrading and maintaining a non- | differentiated piece of their business, or they'll just be happy | users who bring your tech stack to their next gig, where the buy | vs self-host choice gets revisited. | | The main problem is that many teams think they're "that guy (or | girl)" who can manage a complicated piece of infra as a small | team and will be saving money. If you spend 10% of your time | doing devops work, you spend 10% less time on your actual product | (you might as well be binging netflix). A majority of these teams | convert (IME) to a hosted offering once the right price and SLAs | and DevExp are there. The only part of your sales pitch that | matters to these teams is "this isnt worth your time to self host | when we have a great offering thats cheaper and faster to get | setup". If you have a logo from a big co that has the talent to | self host but are buying your product, then your work is done. | aatd86 wrote: | Aren't there businesses for which self-hosting save far more | money? | | Infra is often a financial decision as much as technical. | | (reminds me of basecamp exiting the cloud but I know nothing | more than that) | dgb23 wrote: | Yes. There are plenty of examples of going down the | abstraction stack and saving money among other things. | | I believe the question is really high level and strategic and | there's no one size fits all. | icelancer wrote: | Yes. After factoring in labor, our $XXmm company saves low- | mid six figures per year by self-hosting the majority of our | infra. | candiddevmike wrote: | Truthfully I think you'll find with a thorough review of most | SaaS SLAs that they are more expensive than the toil they say | they replace. Otherwise how would the company make money? | It's still engineers doing X work. There really aren't that | many opportunities for economies of scale with enterprise | SaaS when you have SLAs and data sovereignty unless you're | cutting corners. | j45 wrote: | Saving money can be one consideration. | | Not having the amount of expertise or hours on hand to | support it can be another. Shadow labour costs can add up | pretty quick and some orgs like offsetting that to the vendor | to not overload their people. | | Another consideration is how much the tech aligns with your | core business. Just because you need it doesn't mean you | should build or run a ticketing system. | | Too often there is a lot of SharePoint whiplash and problem | "solutions" that grew out of control. | | Large orgs don't always behave rationally and pragmatically | when there is self preservation or politics at play instead | of being effective at your work. | heipei wrote: | Every discussion around subscribing to a SaaS vs. operating it | is always reduced to costs on HN. There is another, more | critical aspect to why we (and many others) operate their own | infrastructure, run their own servers, operate their own | Elasticsearch clusters: Keeping ownership of customer data for | business continuity and compliance purposes. | mgkimsal wrote: | You can enforce your own SLAs, manage your own downtime, | avoid versions changing under your feet, avoid UI changes to | critical apps... It _is_ a cost, but it 's also a necessary | cost to provide the experience you want to deliver to your | clients. | fidotron wrote: | Are we completely ignoring the technical impact of using a SaaS | that is likely in a whole other data centre to everything else? | | It is very easy to destroy response latency by pinging loads of | messages around when they should be colocated in one place. | | This is one of the reasons AWS services are so sticky compared | to everyone else. | wmf wrote: | It's not in a different data center; it's in us-east-1. | j45 wrote: | Good explanation. | | There will be companies who prefer to self host and those who | don't, and having an option of paid support or cloud hosted can | go a long way especially when the open source project can set | itself up as a first class plugin in the Microsoft cloud. | | Many of not most companies are already on Microsoft and it | ensures a good amount of support for open source so they don't | have to separate features into different tiers. | | One of the more interesting open source setups was a product | that was licensed both as open spruce and commercial, and the | customer (often government or education) would have a policy of | commercial only or open source only and they could support it | both ways. | throttlebody wrote: | Doing your own, requires you to gain knowledge in that area and | in my view expanding your knowledge base is really important. | It's not all about immediate possible financial gain. Obviously | there's a line somewhere | JohnMakin wrote: | A few problems with your comment - | | 1. 10% of your time doing devops work isn't necessarily a waste | - if 10% of that time is cheaper than enterprise offerings, | then this is probably worth the resources, unless you are very | short on talent. | | 2. You have an assumption laden in this comment that SaaS | products eliminate the need for spending time on "devops work." | It can greatly reduce that time, but IME even administrating a | SaaS product can come with a ton work - look at EKS, a | "managed" kubernetes cluster, but often requires a lot of | kubernetes know-how to properly configure and maintain. | omeze wrote: | Both your counterpoints are true, I didnt want to sprinkle | the word "marginal cost" everywhere (marginal devops cost of | buy vs self host). And ofc I agree, not all saas offerings | are the same, EKS is fairly meh as far as setup and time | savings. | jxf wrote: | > 1. 10% of your time doing devops work isn't necessarily a | waste - if 10% of that time is cheaper than enterprise | offerings, then this is probably worth the resources, unless | you are very short on talent. | | That's not the right calculation for revenue-generating | products (IME). The right calculation is: if your product got | this 10% instead of you doing DevOps work, is the additional | long-term revenue higher than the cost of the enterprise | offering? | candiddevmike wrote: | What is the X% of your product you're willing to outsource? | What % of margin are you willing to give up for that | capability? Because the hope/dream of every parasitic SaaS | is to grow with their customers... | j45 wrote: | Let's be honest, dev ops can be more than 10% when there's no | consistent way to tie in every open source project into an | environment. | | SSO helps, but it can still be work to roll out. | ncrmro wrote: | 3. Managed solutions usually aren't as configurable. | paulddraper wrote: | E.g. plugins | debarshri wrote: | One of the key learning lately, selling software to | developers/engineers in general has been that the positioning of | the product should be such that - it is either too boring for | engineers to care about the problem statement or too technically | different to even attempt to solve it. If it falls in the middle, | you will find developer resistance or value dilutation and it | becomes super hard to make engineering teams adopt the product. | | Secondly, opensourcing is distribution strategy. Like any other | GTM, you have to consider the fact that people who are using your | product almost 90+% will not buy the software. They will use it, | but they won't pay for it. You have to have an outbound sales | motion that reaches out to people, send linkedin messages, asking | them to do PoC. Thing is, if the opensource product is popular, | the end user receiving the message might have a high product | recall value. | asow92 wrote: | A few years ago (pre IBM acquisition) a friend of mine at Goldman | Sachs said that Red Hat was the greatest company in the world | because they "sold free software". | chefandy wrote: | This article mentioned building an app "that people love," but | didn't specifically mention one critical factor customers use in | evaluating software: usability and design. Get subject matter | expertise on your team before building the user-facing parts of | your product. Engineering teams _know_ that they 're not good at | marketing or sales, but don't usually realize how much _winging- | it_ with design scares away users. | tomhallett wrote: | Are there any good examples on "source available" startups, where | the software can be run on-prem, can be easily modified/forked by | the customer, but has a commerical license? (Thinking docker | desktop style: free for companies with less than X customers, | monthly flat license for > X employees) | extragood wrote: | I think n8n qualifies. Also TrueNAS | EGreg wrote: | I actually just recorded a show about that exact topic today: | https://youtu.be/5Doiuvct7t0 | pydry wrote: | Elastic | jononor wrote: | Grafana is basically that now? | gdprrrr wrote: | Sonarsource (Sonarqube) | shaburn wrote: | Very compelling arguement for closed source. | generalizations wrote: | I'd be interested if you elaborated. Open source is definitely | a tough starting point, though sometimes it can have some | competitive advantages. | yu3zhou4 wrote: | I'm building a marketplace to help devs sell the open source | software. Would you consider putting your open source for sale on | such platform? Why/why not? What would it take to help you make | this decision? | convolvatron wrote: | maybe you could elaborate a little how that works? selling open | source software - it doesn't have to be an oxymoron, but making | that work isn't straightforward | yu3zhou4 wrote: | Sure, happy to share more: | | Config: | | 1. You set up an account on the marketplace - sign up, then | connect it to Stripe through the marketplace and decide which | software you want to sell (about 15 minutes in total) | | 2. Copy-paste a new license to your repositories - You | relicense your software to use a slightly modified version of | MIT license, which requires commercial entities to pay for | your software (5 minutes or so) | | That's all for config, now your part is done and the rest of | work is on buyer's and marketplace's side. | | You of course remain owner of your software, you don't move | any rights to marketplace or users, except the license for | usage, just like you do it now with MIT/GPL/whatever license | you use right now. Marketplace is only to connect you with | buyers and give you centralized place to sell with automated | infrastructure, so you don't process payments, signups, etc. | by yourself | | Selling: | | If a company wants to use your software, they need to pay a | monthly/yearly fee - you choose how much you charge | | License: | | You can customize the license if you want - you can choose | whether you allow free usage for non- | commercial/scientific/charity purposes and you can also set | some other feature flags, so you have a control over how your | software is used | | And that's basically it | | There's an MVP on https://poss.market if you would like to | check if that even makes sense to you. Thanks and please let | me know what do you think if you made it to this point. I | still figure this out and your feedback is invaluable to me! | cmitsakis wrote: | I've seen something similar in https://indiecc.com/ | gervwyk wrote: | I like this. I've always been wondering why something like | this does not exist. | riyakhanna1983 wrote: | Many have attempted to offer services that allow | developers to "sell their FOSS projects". Unfortunately, | no successful model has emerged so far. | tcmart14 wrote: | There are different variations of a similar idea. The | implementation suggested here though, isn't my favorite | since a modification in the license shouldn't really be | necessary. And, lost of FOSS projects out there can't | just simply relicense. So far, the best implementation | I've seen is specific to Elementary OS in their distro | software center. You can donate to projects directly via | the store. | kjok wrote: | I truly believe that open-source developers can gain | financial independence by selling supply-chain security. | Disclaimer: I'm exploring this idea. | aleph_minus_one wrote: | > 2. Copy-paste a new license to your repositories - You | relicense your software to use a slightly modified version | of MIT license, which requires commercial entities to pay | for your software (5 minutes or so) | | Then the software is not open source anymore, i.e. the | claim that one sells open source software is fraudulent. | | Side remark: In the past Microsoft attempted to establish | the term "shared source" for software where you can see the | source code, but which is not open source. | yu3zhou4 wrote: | Thanks for the remark. On the marketplace I call it "paid | open source software", so I guess I could be more | specific in original comment, sorry for unclearness from | my side | pessimizer wrote: | 1) Simply don't call it "open source software." Making up | new definitions for open source is more harmful to it | than anything else could be. There's nothing to open | source except licensing. | | 2) The usual way to do this is to AGPL your software (or | be even stricter), and sell it by _relicensing it_ for | businesses who pay you so they can use it how they wish. | You don 't have to make up a new "non-commercial open | source" license to do this. | | edit: It feels like OSS people are haphazardly stumbling | through the thought processes that lead to the GPL in the | first place. Once you've made an open source license that | doesn't allow people to make money using the software, | does it matter whether they share their changes or not | when they distribute? | | What's motivating people to reserve the right not to | share changes in the software they distribute for free, | other than to maintain a now _enforced as worthless_ (by | this particular license and similar variants) distinction | from the GPL? | doesnt_know wrote: | The established term is "source available" specifically | because it's not open source. | aleph_minus_one wrote: | > On the marketplace I call it "paid open source | software" | | This is still wrong (and likely again fraudulent, but | IANAL), since the software is _not_ open source if there | are such usage restrictions. Call it, for example, "paid | sofware with source available" ("source available" is | another common term for software for which one can see | the source code, but which is not open source). | nonethewiser wrote: | > the claim that one sells open source software is | fraudulent | | Fraud requires intent to deceive. Your conclusion seems | very alarmist and unfair. | pessimizer wrote: | The rules about open source aren't mysterious or hidden, | and anyone who has spent time rewriting the MIT license | and creating a marketplace for open source software is | either familiar with them or incompetent. | orliesaurus wrote: | how do you enforce any of this? | yu3zhou4 wrote: | Difficult to enforce externally I think, except when an | employee of a company shares an infringement with the | marketplace or the creator | | My assumption: the reason serious companies will pay is | that they don't want to make silly mistakes like license | infringement for which they can be sued. If they want to | use your lib/tool/etc, because it will speed up their | development or help they make money in any other way, | they will choose to pay you these $100 per year. If you | gain a few (dozens, hundreds, thousands) clients like | this, you're able to build a solid source of income, and | since they buy a license on a subscription basis, it's | likely you will keep the clients for the next year | convolvatron wrote: | so, you're in the middle here in order to rewrite my | license text and process payments. | yu3zhou4 wrote: | Basically, yes for now. Also your software becomes | visible on the marketplace and you can have a single | point of sale on your profile at the marketplace | | There are further plans, but I'm still trying to get some | funding/help to have a time to continue development | crop_rotation wrote: | Sometimes I feel like most of these Open Source SAAS businesses | were also only possible in the 0 interest rate era. If your | product is open source then you are competing purely on service | offerings, and it will be very hard to compete on support alone, | since you have by default higher costs due to maintaining the | software itself. Redhat is the exception that proves the rule, | and even they are trying to get as less open as possible. | | Case in point, it would be very hard for Elastic to develop | Elasticsearch and then compete with Cloud providers purely on | hosting quality and price. Opensearch seems to receive very very | few new features compared to ES, and will have features that will | not be opensource, like all the hot and cold storage stuff. | tcmart14 wrote: | I agree and disagree at the same time. If your just providing | the open source software, yes. Where Red Hat and other kind of | kick this rule is by providing the open source software + some | more (which may or may not be open source). This can also be | support. But I look at something like Tailscale, even though it | is still young, it looks pretty promising to me. They provide | wireguard, but the magic is their tools and interfaces on top | of it. So it seems like, you have a good shot at doing open | source SAAS, but you also need to provide something like, a | better and simplified interface. Which is sometimes all you | need. Tons of great FOSS software out there, but a lot of them | are not great at user friendliness. | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-08-15 23:00 UTC)