joshuaboniface
/
blog
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Write more about open-core

This commit is contained in:
Joshua Boniface 2023-01-27 01:15:12 -05:00
parent f90930518b
commit bb5004d3cd
1 changed files with 10 additions and 7 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

17
content/open-core-is-cancer.md
View File

@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ draft: true
In December 2018, I started the Jellyfin project with a few other contributors. The saga is fairly long and complex, but the short version is: "FOSS" branded software closes off portions of their code, "FOSS" branded software does scummy things, "FOSS" branded software goes closed-source, "FOSS" community forks project, original authors call the FOSS community "moochers", "pirates", etc. "FOSS" community fork sees massive support and encouragement regardless. Clearly people like truly "FOSS" software.
Now, almost more than 9 months later, this saga has forced me to see something that I cannot unsee: this pattern is everywhere in the "FOSS" software world. It permeates projects, from large Enterprise-backed projects all the way down to small, single-developer projects. This mentality and software monetization paradigm is cancer on the FOSS world. It divides and drags down members of the community. It stifles contributors and users. And it is only getting worse.
Now, almost more than 2 years later, this saga has forced me to see something that I cannot unsee: this pattern is everywhere in the "FOSS" software world. It permeates projects, from large Enterprise-backed projects all the way down to small, single-developer projects. This mentality and software monetization paradigm is cancer on the FOSS world. It divides and drags down members of the community. It stifles contributors and users. And it is only getting worse.
In this post I hope to record my thoughts on this trend, as a sort-of manifesto for my ideas in developing FOSS software, such as my [PVC](https://github.com/parallelvirtualcluster) hypervisor manager project, and of course [Jellyfin](https://jellyfin.media).
@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ Money.
It's about the money.
No, really. It is widely accepted that FOSS software has a "monitization problem". That is, it's hard for programmers to get paid to write software which is given away 100% freely. And even I can conceded that this view has merit. Despite being an avowed Communist, I can accept that in a Capitalist economic system payment for programmer time is important.
No, really. It is widely accepted that FOSS software has a "monitization problem". That is, it's hard for programmers to get paid to write software which is given away 100% freely. And even I can conceded that this view has merit. Despite being an avowed Communist, I can understand completely that in a Capitalist economic system, payment for programmer time is important.
However, this sort of monitization is also the *easiest* form. It's absolutely trivial to hide functionality behind a paywall. After all, the code is the same. A developer simply has to not release part of the code as FOSS and suddenly, if that feature is high demand, they have a guaranteed revenue stream.
@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ So, the "Open-Core" model is harmful to developer effort and the spirit of coope
Motivations are often unclear and hidden. I'll admit, I've seen examples of Open-Core software that truly does respect their FOSS and Gratis sides. They release all the important features for free, and reserve a select few for their paid version. However, how can any user ever know where the line is drawn? Perhaps a feature that seems "high-end" to the developers is a critical feature for a very small operation. Or perhaps, in the inverse, a very heavy/large user has no use for any of the paid features. No one wins in this scenario.
"Open-Core" ultimately results in keeping users, and specifically the Gratis users, in the dark, always second-guessing what might happen next release. Alway second guessing whether a "bug" is legitimate or a scummy attempt to force users to the non-FOSS versions. And this harms FOSS in general - after all, the project is branded FOSS, has a FOSS community, but if users see, for example, a big performance bug, and this bug is not present in the non-FOSS versions, it begs the questions "is this a priority to fix?" and "is this intentional?". Both of which harm the developer, as well as the FOSS community more broadly.
"Open-Core" ultimately results in keeping users, and specifically the Gratis users, in the dark, always second-guessing what might happen next release. Always second guessing whether a "bug" is legitimate or a scummy attempt to force users to the non-FOSS versions. And this harms FOSS in general - after all, the project is branded FOSS, has a FOSS community, but if users see, for example, a big performance bug, and this bug is not present in the non-FOSS versions, it begs the questions "is this a priority to fix?" and "is this intentional?". Both of which harm the developers, as well as the FOSS community more broadly.
Further, it's often hard to tell whether projects are taking a "release-later" "open-core" position. With this sort of position, the software releases a feature as part of the non-FOSS product today, but intends to eventually release it as part of the FOSS project. But of course, if they announced they were doing this, it would cannibalize their attempt to monitize. So this fact is hidden from end-users, until the day the feature is released. Now, I do think that this method of "Open-Core" is probably the least offensive, since the features do eventually make it to the FOSS community. But this is also predicated on the good-will of those behind the project, and can change at any time. All of this leaving users in the dark.
@ -68,9 +68,12 @@ Beyond just leaving users in the dark, with "Open-Core" software, the attempt to
In a truly FOSS project, 100% set to the ideals of the 4 freedoms, every decision, every feature, exists to make the project better. It has to - otherwise, why would anyone contribute it? Perhaps it only scratches the itch of a single member of the project, but that's still a motivation to improve the project as a whole. And since every change is open to everyone, it can be adequetly critiqued and tweaked to be the best it can be.
But when monetization is the first goal and "Open-Core" is the solution, everything flips on its head. Suddenly the "FOSS" aspect is secondary to the moneymaking, and the ideological compromises stack up, one after another, until there is very little left of the freedoms and the project ultimately decides to go closed-source.
## Under Open-Core, FOSS is just marketing
1. Do not respect FOSS ideals
2. Gratis users left in the dark
3. Monitization drives decisions
4. What about the future?
Ultimately, under an "Open-Core" model, FOSS just becomes a marketing tool. A way to "hook" users who care about the freedoms of FOSS software into using a product, only to effectively extort them for payment to get 100% of the functionality. This is harmful.
## There must be a better way
I don't have all, or even a good, answer to the problem of FOSS monetization. Some models work for some companies or individuals, others don't, and [some people go nuclear](https://lwn.net/Articles/880809/). But as I've stated above, I think "Open-Core" is one of the worst ways to proceed, harming both developers and users in the process. It is an afront to the 4 freedoms in spirit, stifles innovation, and should be stopped.