The challenge with the argument that you can make money off of support, consulting, training, etc., is that the proprietary developers make money off this stuff, too. With open source, these revenue streams are instead of revenue from the code whereas with proprietary software, they are in addition to revenue from the code.
Proprietary code will always make triple the amount over open source for this exact reason. Linus Torvalds in reality should be some what close to bill gates in networth with how sucessful Linux is in the world. But because his money mainly comes from counseling, donations and seminars, he's effectively limited the potential amount of money he could have made.
@@johannes523 like in this paradox "this statement is false" - whenever this statement becomes true it becomes false. Whenever Linus becomes rich he becomes poor :) because he saws off the branch he's sitting on. it is truly a mystery of life for me
I dont know if this is entirely related, but there is a lot of nonfree Javascript code. Even obfuscated Javascript code sent to the user is considered to be nonfree, and theres plugins like LibreJS to block these nonfree scripts. And the problem is that this nonfree software gets loaded to the user's web browser without getting notified of it at all, most modern websites are nonfree, let alone terrible for privacy.
There's also the 'pay what you want' model. Even if you can't force people to pay for FOSS, they often will anyway if it's good software. Elementary OS has implemented this into their software store where many apps have a suggested price but you can choose any other amount, including $0.
They should make it like Bandcamp - Before someone downloads the software the downloader gets asked to donate some money. Or make 1 Dollar minimum for a Software download and give everyone the option to pay more money, if they think the product deserves it. This animates much more people to "donate" some money instead of just having a donation button on the side. No one should cry because of that
Another common model that some game developers use is to create a game engine and license it under an Open Source license, but the game data with the story and graphical elements being sold (most likely that will be proprietary). So pretty much anyone can use the game engine to create their own game using the engine and they can still make money selling the game iteself.
I don't even understand why many games try and hide their source code. If games like minecraft, terraria, factorio etc. released their source code (to paying customers,) this wouldn't substantially help anyone pirating their software etc. It would be extremely helpful for modders, as well as people making their own games (by seeing how a complex project is managed.) Is there a reason for never releasing the source code, apart from stupid outdated business policies.
@@itdepends604 Closed source isn't an outdated business practice, it's actually a viable business model. There are many reasons for not releasing the source code.especially in games. To create a game, you might have several people or developers creating artwork for the game, physics and contributing code. If someone else contributes something, it's the property of another entity, which the publisher has no right to release without permission. Most of what I hear from the Open Source community, is entitlement. They aren't entitle to anyone else's code.
@@PenguinRevolution I would not say it is about entitlement, it is more about privacy and freedom. I have no way of knowing what a proprietary binary is really doing, and a computer or a phone is a very fragile window to my private life. At the same time, why should I lend *my* computer to some company to run whatever they want? I need to make sure that the software is doing exactly what I intended (and not e.g. any shady telemetry or mining). Moreover, any legal regulations are going to fall behind without access to the source code, because the companies can keep inventing new tracking solutions, etc. (like what google is doing with flocks, now that cookies are being regulated).
@@hogstudio4819 There is no such thing as the "rights of the user" or "user freedom", even in free software, except the freedom to choose your software. Technically free software is still the IP of the original developer and what protects free software licenses is IP laws A free software license is an agreement to release the code and allow others to contribute. If this was truly about "freedom" and "privacy" then they should just shut up about it and not use anything proprietary. The fact they whine and cry about DRM is because of their sense of entitlement. they want every body's code, they want DRM free media, they want this and that. Sorry you entitle FOSS community, the world doesn't work that way and you need to grow up!
@@PenguinRevolution My personal take is to avoid anything that I cannot trust (and that's usually applicable for proprietary software). It is a strawman to say that FOSS people want everybody's code, I am not talking about. It is also incorrect to say that "the world does not work like that", a big part of software is open-source and companies try to use when it makes sense for them. I don't think people should shut up regarding anything (because of the liberal society, where rational people debate about truth and all of that) but especially in the case of data. Mainly, because a) people lack education in what data is actually used for and how it is collected and b) my data does not matter, *our* data is the important piece. You cannot train any sort of statistical model with one data point. That includes cat videos recommender systems but also surveillance and killer drones. I believe that's important.
I'm developing a web app, mainly for myself, but it will be open source once im happy with the code being viewable, but that I'm going to do is sell the binaries but also as you said with support, I might eventually setup the ability for me to host the web app for them, so to cut out maintenance and setup and so on
@@jozsefk9 I am not just talking about software. installation mostly includes the server farm layout and scale and or other needed devises as well as the servers software.
Great vlog ! Any advice on how to make money from a “pure Ruby” (not Ruby on Rails SaaS) program or gem? Ruby is an interpreted language so it cannot and does not need to be compiled, so any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Selling any software in general is a really weird market. I personally don't think open or not matters one iota, not a single person is going to go and say, "hey I will just compile from source not and pay for this". But anyways, back to my point. As a avid user of software for decades, both closed, and open, both free and commercial, and demo, I occasionally have enough extra money lying around that I think to myself: I could hardly function without this amazing software I have been using free for 20 years now, I should buy the pro version. And then you get to the website and the cheapest license is $600 per annum per computer. Non-game software is almost entirely built around hoping some fortune 500 company decides they need that piece of software and will pay millions in licensing fees per annum, and everyone else can either use the free demo or pirate it.
Great mindset. Whoever is going into open-source programming adventure, if he wants compensation; should think about multiple ways in advance. And test best cases. It's an weighted risk adventure. For example Ghost blog platform is fully open MIT non restrictive, but they bill cool money from hosting it. And it's not that cheap also... So it's doable if the product is great / better than others. The problem with some open source software is that - it's not that great piece of software (meaning a lott worse experience than commercial one). Not all - some.
Its true . I was asking me why do people post opensource code and if someone gets it , if he or she wanna make money of it the first have to understand it and dive into the code , and I ll not be a reliable person if they dont explain it at leasts ... there is always a way of making money instead of complaining and being worry about piracy
Devs are a such a niche market to cater to, and when you have to change your whole business model to do it, it's a dumb decision. All that just to get a merge request that'll decrease your startup time by .0002 nanoseconds
My tip: Just don't make the Donation option too obvious, but place it very near to the Download button or give every downloader the message that he/she should consider donating to the project. Maybe add some personal recommendations with some Affiliate links to trusted companies with High Quality products. This is a way how people can support the project without giving extra money. List the biggest or last donators somewhere etc. etc. I would also make Open Source software cost 1 Dollar, if not enough people are willing to support the project. Or make one free version and 1 version that costs a bit with some extra features. There is absolutely nothing wrong about it and everyone with an IQ over 90 will understands this. if it is a high Quality product for Professionals (like Video Editing software for example), you could even make it cost 10 dollars or more. Maybe grant people a bit extra support, if they paid for the project.
As a developer, the vast majority of developers don't sell anything. They're just salaried or contracted to companies and develop what they're asked to develop, then the company does whatever they want with it.
@@o.aggelos I know. I’m pointing out that his argument isn’t really applicable to the vast majority of developers. Companies largely aren’t going to pay people to develop things they distribute for free. A guaranteed stable income is already more attractive to most developers than trying to get rich by developing the next big app and selling it, much less if the app is free and you have to try and use the free app as a gateway to make money in other ways. For most developers, that’s simply too much risk.
I don't think the vast majority of developers are working on products, though. Companies need a lot of in house software, that won't change anytime soon. I think it's mostly FUD to say that we need proprietary software to have stability. Especially because the laws about copyright and patents are so intolerable to begin with.
He actually (DT) has no idea what he's talking about. He does this a lot. If he gets called out, he'll just cop out with a 'I was feeding the engagement metrics' or somesuch.
That is very interesting problem. I wish there was deeper discussion. The conclusion that code is just means to sell something else is somewhat unsatisfying. That pretty much means that, developer, as a profession, has no future within open source. When code is free, there are indeed no means to assure payment. Recently there was an incident when developer sabotaged his own project because it was used without any payment by multiple large companies. So relying on donations, did not work as well. Overall it seems to mean that it's all fine and good to develop open source projects as a hobby, but, if somebody wants a job as a developer, he must work in a company that develops closed source products.
Selling a software license = one payment. Making money selling support, training consulting, books, etc around open source software = unlimited recurring income
yes, you have to re-invent what you are selling. McD's is not in the food business, they are in the real estate business. They buy all the land and lease it back to the franchise owners. They then have the capital to buy more land with the added income of the monthly lease rent. Google isn't in the Search business, they are in the advertisement business. They provide Search and you the user provide an advertisement audience.
I think that you do not actually sell the program; you can get the code and compile it yourself. You're basically selling convenience by shipping the prebuilt binary, the libraries it might need, a setup program and maybe support as well. It will be an interesting way to make money (RedHat and SUSE do that and definitely are far from poor).
The way the GPL is written, you don't have any obligation to share the software. If someone obtains a binary copy of the source, they have the right to obtain the source code. But if they only have the source code, they don't have the right to ask you for a binary. IIRC the GPL also forbids obfuscating or removing instructions to build the program, to prevent people from taking advantage of it.
@@josephbrandenburg4373 I'm creating a game right now, licensed under the GPL (Yeah, it's free, I don't really care about money). I haven't seen any references to whatever you just said, but I'll have a proper look into it, I've only licensed it under the GPL to make sure it stays open source.
@@o.aggelos For something like a game, you can get all the benefuts of proprietary software without any of the drawbacks. License the code under a free license, license the art and music under a copyright (one that permits modding of course). You can give people software freedom and still maintain copyright over your work. It is important, if you do this, to make it easy to build and distribute without violating your trademarks or copyrights. I would do this by creating "art packs" or "content packs". The game code would essentially be a game engine. OpenMW does this exactly- they only made a game engine. It is capable of playing Bethesda's Morrowind if you have a legal copy of the game. Everyone wins. I don't like copyright much, but I think this is a good way of doing things because it's not as risky as trying something entirely new. I might do this if I ever make a game, if I don't have the balls to make the art freely licensed.
The problem with this is that it may incentivise people to make software that seems useful, but is not made in such a way that is easy to use, hence requiring the user to get a support subscription of whatever service the developing company provides. Though, of course someone else might just make a better UI for it, using the available source.
Yes that's what I'm thinking. If more and more companies got into FOSS they'd develop filthy tactics, like catchy software, or like overly complex code that can't easily be read. Also if people start to actually pay regularly for FOSS what opinion will they have on it? Do they really care about the extensibility and the other little positives?
There are to many comments like this. People have to make a profit somehow. The free and open source community has developed a sense of entitlement. They want free software, they want the code, and then they want ease of use as well (even if you don't pay for it). You can't have it all
I think this is valid point. Although it immidiately comes to my mind how the community fixes most difficulties, and create all sorts of ways to make all easier. Look how Linux was difficult to install some time ago, and how today it is easier than any of other proprietary counterparts...It seems community balances that problem out.
There is no problem with that, compiling software in itself is a complex and difficult process at times. Plus it takes time to compile software into binaries. Free and OpenSource software doesn't mean you're entitled to eas of use.
ok...i get that it is probable a just kidding post..... however the YT algorithm does not look at the subject of the video to suggest ads-- it looks from your browser history, so someone in your household must be looking for hair products online!
@@littlepeon I was totally serious... The entire day and a half so far was nearly nothing but hair products...despite the fact that all the time I was mainly on tech channels... Even Steve from Gamers Nexus got the hair product placement ads... What was really weird was the fact that five of my first six channels for tech news were bald guys... Unless it was something one nurse said at the hospital and somehow the Google Monster ran away with it...I can't understand why the ads popped up...
@@rlosangeleskings lols...it happens... Anecdotal story: a buddy of mine posted on Facebook a joke about running off to Thailand and becoming a monk. For the next 2 months on Google/Facebook he was bombarded with ads offering low rate airfare to Asia. Weird stuff happens sometimes for the darndest reasons.
Just a comment. Imagine you have to pay a "python membership" for all your Python code. Or for any framework. The cost of being a developer would be huge. Most developers build a thin layer of property software on top of huuuuge amount pf FOSS. that's the truth
good advice DT, the philosophy of open source can be generalized to other domains of our daily lives, and it will be the beginning of a well-enlightened society
fter watching so many UA-cam tutorial videos about trading I was still making losses until Mrs Renee Lynne Baggay started managing my investments now I make $21,560 weekly. God bless Mrs Renee she has been a blessing to my family.
Some devs have got youtube channels, when they do live stream of active development I chuck them some coin! On github I can normally give active devs money also.
I run an integrated library system (ILS). Just as with commercial applications, ILSs are complicated applications, and there is a large dedicated cadre of volunteers to keep ours running. The ILS is open source. A few companies have examined the code and rewritten parts, of course. So they sell the compiled executable to libraries that cannot afford an IT staff to run the open source edition. What else do they commercial companies do? They provide hosting and maintenance. There is also one company I know of that provides instructional videos, maintenance of the open source version, consulting, and extensions. So there are several ways to make money from open source: rewrite from top to bottom, hosting, maintenance, consulting, extensions, and instructional videos and manuals. Not perfect but decent.
I think most companies don't give a crap for the free software movement saying "a user should be able to modify the program they bought" because 99% of users aren't programmers. It's such a niche market to cater to developers. At least when it comes to making modifications for your own private use.
To make money from open source software in the long-term you rely on service/support and/or donations. That means your software has to be of a high quality. You can make a quick buck with trash in the short-term but not in the long-term.
Interesting vlog Derek. There's truth in those words you speak even if there aree some who may not agree with you. I for one do and understand your points made. I also enjoy seeing that nice backyard too. Take care brother, until the next one!
I know some refuse to get paid for their work. They don't want to mess around with the taxes stuff behind it. There are even developer's are hard to contact because of this.
@@herbertwestiron They don't. They are doing it just for fun. No rewards needed as in payment. They just want to code and release it to the free world. You enjoy it and just say thanks and keep your money to yourself. Hobbyist do things for fun and don't care about money.
@@gimcrack555 Yeah. Got it. I just thought you were talking about someone who makes foss software to earn. Ofc one wouldn't want tax hassle from a hobby. Only makes sense.
Look to great success of gitlab. They have open source code, but paid services, and paid add-ons with additional advanced features. If you want better business, buy our advanced paid additional features. Framework and basement is free, add-ons and huge features are proprietary. It is still selling of code, but not exactly. If user loves this software, they can buy additional extensions, because wants to save time against write your own solution.
You don't earn money on selling software. You sell your experience. You work for companies to adjust free software to work for them. So. - Sell you knowledge. - Sell your money. - Sell your time to fix their problems. - Sell courses to teach people about software.
That's actually the model nowadays even for big companies like google/microsoft, they give you all these services email, calendar, video conferences, docs, disc space,,,,all online and for free but also have premium services on top of them. We have other examples, facebook, Canonical with Ubuntu, Red Hat.... As you said it's either a excuse or they're more technical then business oriented
Selling software directly is an outdated model. What people should be selling instead should be the convenience of the distribution. You could "sell" the software on a main website, but what they are really paying for is a guarantee that the software is legit. Since the software is open source, anyone can just offer the code for free somewhere which many people will download, but not everyone would want to take a chance downloading something from some random somebody. Even if people could view the code on GitHub, not everyone that downloads it would read all the code. If people are afraid of running an executable from some torrent, why would anyone do it with free free software that the developers were not involved with?
That's because someone compiled it for your distro, FOSS licenses allow that. Also distributing the pre-built binaries that you bought wouldn't be illegal either. Open Source that you purchased from the devs are still open source and free to distribute as well. The distro devs could have bought a pre-built binary to put in their repository as well.
@@PenguinRevolution i know, it's licensed under GPL-2.0, I just meant that their model isn't really better than donation model (just asking people to donate when they install software or sth)
I'm writing an addon for Blender right now. I plan on making it freely available as pay-what-you-will. I plan on making money by selling content packs. I think that's a good balance to strike.
@@iodreamify I'm not really doing it for the money... I just want to buy a new graphics card. I'm not planning to release till the start of the second quarter, June or July.
Are you the owner of distrowatch? I forgot can you please tell me I played sauerbraten its fun! Also tried open office for windows it was sorta like ms office and google workspace
they ubuntu source change name and sell with good pack. wait. no take debian and do same add ubuntu wallpaper or your own and call it ehat ever same debian based something lol
I made money from FOSS. By using it for my work, as physicist and as IT contractor. And by giving back - some of my stuff helped run a world chain of radio telescopes, listening to the whispers of the stars. That is worth a lot.
hey, DT. that's a great take. something i'd like to add that's worth mentioning is that FOSS already does a lot for SMBs by saving startup costs when it provides costless alternatives to mainstream software.
It used to be done through services that people offered around the software: Writing books, giving in person training services and video training services and support. Stuff like that.
These companies are so out of the loop, they do not realize that the pirates actually help them spread their stuff and essentially give them new fans. So rather than blaming the pirates, blame yourself for being tied to a bad business deal that isn't very lucrative in today's world.
Don't say that to an artist because he'll beat you upside down. "I don't have money but I'll spread the word about you" all the time, thanks, but when do I actually get to eat something? You have a point about the business model but this mentality you give off is destructive.
The challenge with the argument that you can make money off of support, consulting, training, etc., is that the proprietary developers make money off this stuff, too. With open source, these revenue streams are instead of revenue from the code whereas with proprietary software, they are in addition to revenue from the code.
Proprietary code will always make triple the amount over open source for this exact reason. Linus Torvalds in reality should be some what close to bill gates in networth with how sucessful Linux is in the world. But because his money mainly comes from counseling, donations and seminars, he's effectively limited the potential amount of money he could have made.
@@jupiterapollo4985 That is very true and valid, although maybe one reason Linux is so successful is that it is open source in the first place 🤔
@@johannes523 like in this paradox "this statement is false" - whenever this statement becomes true it becomes false. Whenever Linus becomes rich he becomes poor :) because he saws off the branch he's sitting on. it is truly a mystery of life for me
Web Developers make a living from open source as a service to clients and employers. I've been earning a living from it for just over twenty years. 😉
Can you share some of your projects? I'm trying to enter the same space and is looking for inspiration. Thank you!
I dont know if this is entirely related, but there is a lot of nonfree Javascript code. Even obfuscated Javascript code sent to the user is considered to be nonfree, and theres plugins like LibreJS to block these nonfree scripts.
And the problem is that this nonfree software gets loaded to the user's web browser without getting notified of it at all, most modern websites are nonfree, let alone terrible for privacy.
There's also the 'pay what you want' model. Even if you can't force people to pay for FOSS, they often will anyway if it's good software. Elementary OS has implemented this into their software store where many apps have a suggested price but you can choose any other amount, including $0.
Great topic! Please make a video about open software licenses, like AGPL, GPL, LGPL, MIT, BSD ...the world needs this!
They should make it like Bandcamp - Before someone downloads the software the downloader gets asked to donate some money. Or make 1 Dollar minimum for a Software download and give everyone the option to pay more money, if they think the product deserves it. This animates much more people to "donate" some money instead of just having a donation button on the side.
No one should cry because of that
Another common model that some game developers use is to create a game engine and license it under an Open Source license, but the game data with the story and graphical elements being sold (most likely that will be proprietary). So pretty much anyone can use the game engine to create their own game using the engine and they can still make money selling the game iteself.
I don't even understand why many games try and hide their source code. If games like minecraft, terraria, factorio etc. released their source code (to paying customers,) this wouldn't substantially help anyone pirating their software etc. It would be extremely helpful for modders, as well as people making their own games (by seeing how a complex project is managed.) Is there a reason for never releasing the source code, apart from stupid outdated business policies.
@@itdepends604 Closed source isn't an outdated business practice, it's actually a viable business model.
There are many reasons for not releasing the source code.especially in games. To create a game, you might have several people or developers creating artwork for the game, physics and contributing code. If someone else contributes something, it's the property of another entity, which the publisher has no right to release without permission.
Most of what I hear from the Open Source community, is entitlement. They aren't entitle to anyone else's code.
@@PenguinRevolution I would not say it is about entitlement, it is more about privacy and freedom. I have no way of knowing what a proprietary binary is really doing, and a computer or a phone is a very fragile window to my private life. At the same time, why should I lend *my* computer to some company to run whatever they want? I need to make sure that the software is doing exactly what I intended (and not e.g. any shady telemetry or mining). Moreover, any legal regulations are going to fall behind without access to the source code, because the companies can keep inventing new tracking solutions, etc. (like what google is doing with flocks, now that cookies are being regulated).
@@hogstudio4819 There is no such thing as the "rights of the user" or "user freedom", even in free software, except the freedom to choose your software. Technically free software is still the IP of the original developer and what protects free software licenses is IP laws A free software license is an agreement to release the code and allow others to contribute.
If this was truly about "freedom" and "privacy" then they should just shut up about it and not use anything proprietary. The fact they whine and cry about DRM is because of their sense of entitlement. they want every body's code, they want DRM free media, they want this and that. Sorry you entitle FOSS community, the world doesn't work that way and you need to grow up!
@@PenguinRevolution My personal take is to avoid anything that I cannot trust (and that's usually applicable for proprietary software). It is a strawman to say that FOSS people want everybody's code, I am not talking about. It is also incorrect to say that "the world does not work like that", a big part of software is open-source and companies try to use when it makes sense for them.
I don't think people should shut up regarding anything (because of the liberal society, where rational people debate about truth and all of that) but especially in the case of data. Mainly, because a) people lack education in what data is actually used for and how it is collected and b) my data does not matter, *our* data is the important piece. You cannot train any sort of statistical model with one data point. That includes cat videos recommender systems but also surveillance and killer drones. I believe that's important.
Even my own videos are CC'd because I like to use other peoples music. Plus youtube is just a bit of fun for me.
I'm developing a web app, mainly for myself, but it will be open source once im happy with the code being viewable, but that I'm going to do is sell the binaries but also as you said with support, I might eventually setup the ability for me to host the web app for them, so to cut out maintenance and setup and so on
Exactly. You can sell services AROUND free open source software 💪😌
Hey DT, my parents are making a good living out of Open Source Software through installation and Service. That's a good and proven Businesses model.
So that software is very difficult to install or what?
I am your parent Luke.
@@jozsefk9 before Ubuntu, Debian was really hard to install. So was Arch, 7 years ago, before all the Wiki, YT-vids, and blogs.
@@jozsefk9 os installation is hard for most of the people, regardless of which os they want. In linux, its easier but still hard for normies
@@jozsefk9 I am not just talking about software. installation mostly includes the server farm layout and scale and or other needed devises as well as the servers software.
You have that Boomer wandering around your backyard again.
Great vlog !
Any advice on how to make money from a “pure Ruby” (not Ruby on Rails SaaS) program or gem? Ruby is an interpreted language so it cannot and does not need to be compiled, so any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Selling any software in general is a really weird market. I personally don't think open or not matters one iota, not a single person is going to go and say, "hey I will just compile from source not and pay for this".
But anyways, back to my point. As a avid user of software for decades, both closed, and open, both free and commercial, and demo, I occasionally have enough extra money lying around that I think to myself: I could hardly function without this amazing software I have been using free for 20 years now, I should buy the pro version. And then you get to the website and the cheapest license is $600 per annum per computer.
Non-game software is almost entirely built around hoping some fortune 500 company decides they need that piece of software and will pay millions in licensing fees per annum, and everyone else can either use the free demo or pirate it.
Is it impossible no, but one has to work 10× harder to make money thru the open source then Proprietary....
Great mindset. Whoever is going into open-source programming adventure, if he wants compensation; should think about multiple ways in advance. And test best cases. It's an weighted risk adventure. For example Ghost blog platform is fully open MIT non restrictive, but they bill cool money from hosting it. And it's not that cheap also... So it's doable if the product is great / better than others. The problem with some open source software is that - it's not that great piece of software (meaning a lott worse experience than commercial one). Not all - some.
Its true . I was asking me why do people post opensource code and if someone gets it , if he or she wanna make money of it the first have to understand it and dive into the code , and I ll not be a reliable person if they dont explain it at leasts ... there is always a way of making money instead of complaining and being worry about piracy
Devs are a such a niche market to cater to, and when you have to change your whole business model to do it, it's a dumb decision. All that just to get a merge request that'll decrease your startup time by .0002 nanoseconds
My tip: Just don't make the Donation option too obvious, but place it very near to the Download button or give every downloader the message that he/she should consider donating to the project.
Maybe add some personal recommendations with some Affiliate links to trusted companies with High Quality products. This is a way how people can support the project without giving extra money. List the biggest or last donators somewhere etc. etc. I would also make Open Source software cost 1 Dollar, if not enough people are willing to support the project.
Or make one free version and 1 version that costs a bit with some extra features. There is absolutely nothing wrong about it and everyone with an IQ over 90 will understands this.
if it is a high Quality product for Professionals (like Video Editing software for example), you could even make it cost 10 dollars or more. Maybe grant people a bit extra support, if they paid for the project.
As a developer, the vast majority of developers don't sell anything. They're just salaried or contracted to companies and develop what they're asked to develop, then the company does whatever they want with it.
He's talking about singular developers (I hope that's the word for a developer working alone on a project).
@@o.aggelos I know. I’m pointing out that his argument isn’t really applicable to the vast majority of developers. Companies largely aren’t going to pay people to develop things they distribute for free.
A guaranteed stable income is already more attractive to most developers than trying to get rich by developing the next big app and selling it, much less if the app is free and you have to try and use the free app as a gateway to make money in other ways. For most developers, that’s simply too much risk.
I don't think the vast majority of developers are working on products, though. Companies need a lot of in house software, that won't change anytime soon. I think it's mostly FUD to say that we need proprietary software to have stability. Especially because the laws about copyright and patents are so intolerable to begin with.
He actually (DT) has no idea what he's talking about. He does this a lot. If he gets called out, he'll just cop out with a 'I was feeding the engagement metrics' or somesuch.
@@valsharess-yt lol and you know so much better
That is very interesting problem. I wish there was deeper discussion.
The conclusion that code is just means to sell something else is somewhat unsatisfying.
That pretty much means that, developer, as a profession, has no future within open source.
When code is free, there are indeed no means to assure payment.
Recently there was an incident when developer sabotaged his own project because it was
used without any payment by multiple large companies. So relying on donations, did not work as well.
Overall it seems to mean that it's all fine and good to develop open source projects as a hobby,
but, if somebody wants a job as a developer, he must work in a company that develops closed source products.
FInally a linux user in the sun (other than luke) :)
I charge the service.
and I give a donation to a program I use ALL the time... Krita.
Selling a software license = one payment. Making money selling support, training consulting, books, etc around open source software = unlimited recurring income
yes, you have to re-invent what you are selling. McD's is not in the food business, they are in the real estate business. They buy all the land and lease it back to the franchise owners. They then have the capital to buy more land with the added income of the monthly lease rent. Google isn't in the Search business, they are in the advertisement business. They provide Search and you the user provide an advertisement audience.
Your home looks like Linux before customization
I think that you do not actually sell the program; you can get the code and compile it yourself. You're basically selling convenience by shipping the prebuilt binary, the libraries it might need, a setup program and maybe support as well. It will be an interesting way to make money (RedHat and SUSE do that and definitely are far from poor).
The way the GPL is written, you don't have any obligation to share the software. If someone obtains a binary copy of the source, they have the right to obtain the source code. But if they only have the source code, they don't have the right to ask you for a binary.
IIRC the GPL also forbids obfuscating or removing instructions to build the program, to prevent people from taking advantage of it.
@@josephbrandenburg4373 I'm creating a game right now, licensed under the GPL (Yeah, it's free, I don't really care about money). I haven't seen any references to whatever you just said, but I'll have a proper look into it, I've only licensed it under the GPL to make sure it stays open source.
@@o.aggelos For something like a game, you can get all the benefuts of proprietary software without any of the drawbacks. License the code under a free license, license the art and music under a copyright (one that permits modding of course). You can give people software freedom and still maintain copyright over your work.
It is important, if you do this, to make it easy to build and distribute without violating your trademarks or copyrights.
I would do this by creating "art packs" or "content packs". The game code would essentially be a game engine. OpenMW does this exactly- they only made a game engine. It is capable of playing Bethesda's Morrowind if you have a legal copy of the game. Everyone wins.
I don't like copyright much, but I think this is a good way of doing things because it's not as risky as trying something entirely new. I might do this if I ever make a game, if I don't have the balls to make the art freely licensed.
The problem with this is that it may incentivise people to make software that seems useful, but is not made in such a way that is easy to use, hence requiring the user to get a support subscription of whatever service the developing company provides. Though, of course someone else might just make a better UI for it, using the available source.
Yes that's what I'm thinking. If more and more companies got into FOSS they'd develop filthy tactics, like catchy software, or like overly complex code that can't easily be read.
Also if people start to actually pay regularly for FOSS what opinion will they have on it? Do they really care about the extensibility and the other little positives?
There are to many comments like this. People have to make a profit somehow. The free and open source community has developed a sense of entitlement. They want free software, they want the code, and then they want ease of use as well (even if you don't pay for it). You can't have it all
@@PenguinRevolution well said
I think this is valid point. Although it immidiately comes to my mind how the community fixes most difficulties, and create all sorts of ways to make all easier. Look how Linux was difficult to install some time ago, and how today it is easier than any of other proprietary counterparts...It seems community balances that problem out.
The problem with selling binaries is that developers could puposely make the compile process really hard to maximize their profit.
There is no problem with that, compiling software in itself is a complex and difficult process at times. Plus it takes time to compile software into binaries.
Free and OpenSource software doesn't mean you're entitled to eas of use.
DT...I just wish that YT would stop advertising dandruff shampoo before your videos and even moreso the hair coloring products after them...
ok...i get that it is probable a just kidding post..... however the YT algorithm does not look at the subject of the video to suggest ads-- it looks from your browser history, so someone in your household must be looking for hair products online!
@@littlepeon I was totally serious... The entire day and a half so far was nearly nothing but hair products...despite the fact that all the time I was mainly on tech channels... Even Steve from Gamers Nexus got the hair product placement ads... What was really weird was the fact that five of my first six channels for tech news were bald guys...
Unless it was something one nurse said at the hospital and somehow the Google Monster ran away with it...I can't understand why the ads popped up...
@@rlosangeleskings lols...it happens... Anecdotal story: a buddy of mine posted on Facebook a joke about running off to Thailand and becoming a monk. For the next 2 months on Google/Facebook he was bombarded with ads offering low rate airfare to Asia. Weird stuff happens sometimes for the darndest reasons.
Get the ublock browser extension to disable ads
for my own projects, I've become a fan of AGPL
Just a comment. Imagine you have to pay a "python membership" for all your Python code. Or for any framework. The cost of being a developer would be huge. Most developers build a thin layer of property software on top of huuuuge amount pf FOSS. that's the truth
Software license for companies but not individuals. See winrar or jetbrains
good advice DT, the philosophy of open source can be generalized to other domains of our daily lives, and it will be the beginning of a well-enlightened society
My life totally changed since I started with S 3,000 and now I make $ 16,450 every 11 days.
I'm new to investing, how do I do it
@@samantharichards7934 I've been profit-oriented ever since i started my first trading with Mrs Renee Lynne Baggay.
fter watching so many UA-cam tutorial videos about trading I was still making losses until Mrs Renee Lynne Baggay started managing my investments now I make $21,560 weekly. God bless Mrs Renee she has been a blessing to my family.
@@rosed.vogelsang2989 I have really heard lot about Mrs Lynne , please can I have her info?
@@Soniaobioma- Her availability is sure and faster on SMS and wat's.. Apk..
My linux learning journey is a success, thanks to Professor dt n dis youtube university. I once paid for my red hat n felt dignified.
RSS & ICQ were perfectly fine. Bigtech, which arose from open source software, is a terrible replacement.
Lol you kept looking down to either dodge stepping on leaves to not make so much background noise or avoiding armadillo holes.
Can you talk about how donations work out for open source?
Some devs have got youtube channels, when they do live stream of active development I chuck them some coin! On github I can normally give active devs money also.
Hey DT, what camera are you using in your Vlogs?
Samsung Galaxy 10. With a bit of color grading experimentation in Kdenlive..
@@DistroTube 😅 hey dt answered without a video...
@@DistroTube Hey DT, if DT was a company, how would it look like?
@@tailsorange2872 Clean cut
The volume was kind of low on this video, being outside I guess.
I run an integrated library system (ILS). Just as with commercial applications, ILSs are complicated applications, and there is a large dedicated cadre of volunteers to keep ours running. The ILS is open source.
A few companies have examined the code and rewritten parts, of course. So they sell the compiled executable to libraries that cannot afford an IT staff to run the open source edition. What else do they commercial companies do? They provide hosting and maintenance.
There is also one company I know of that provides instructional videos, maintenance of the open source version, consulting, and extensions.
So there are several ways to make money from open source: rewrite from top to bottom, hosting, maintenance, consulting, extensions, and instructional videos and manuals.
Not perfect but decent.
Honestly if developers want to make some money. They should provide places to tip them. Places to send them money etc.
That's hoping people send you donations on good faith. That's no guaranteed way to make a living from all your hard work...
@@jupiterapollo4985 Yeah but these people aren't making money anyway.
@@allenellsworth5799 Yeah open source is a sh*t deal in making money even way you look at it. The license is too ridged and probably needs a revamp.
@@jupiterapollo4985 People who do it aren't trying to make money.
Water is free, but that doesn't mean the plumber or distributer doesn't make money.
I think most companies don't give a crap for the free software movement saying "a user should be able to modify the program they bought" because 99% of users aren't programmers.
It's such a niche market to cater to developers. At least when it comes to making modifications for your own private use.
To make money from open source software in the long-term you rely on service/support and/or donations. That means your software has to be of a high quality. You can make a quick buck with trash in the short-term but not in the long-term.
75 billion dollar hosting industry proves you can make money with open source.
Interesting vlog Derek. There's truth in those words you speak even if there aree some who may not agree with you. I for one do and understand your points made. I also enjoy seeing that nice backyard too. Take care brother, until the next one!
I know some refuse to get paid for their work. They don't want to mess around with the taxes stuff behind it. There are even developer's are hard to contact because of this.
Can you elaborate? How do they earn then?
@@herbertwestiron They don't. They are doing it just for fun. No rewards needed as in payment. They just want to code and release it to the free world. You enjoy it and just say thanks and keep your money to yourself. Hobbyist do things for fun and don't care about money.
@@gimcrack555 Yeah. Got it. I just thought you were talking about someone who makes foss software to earn.
Ofc one wouldn't want tax hassle from a hobby. Only makes sense.
Look to great success of gitlab. They have open source code, but paid services, and paid add-ons with additional advanced features. If you want better business, buy our advanced paid additional features. Framework and basement is free, add-ons and huge features are proprietary. It is still selling of code, but not exactly. If user loves this software, they can buy additional extensions, because wants to save time against write your own solution.
Bitwarden?
You don't earn money on selling software. You sell your experience. You work for companies to adjust free software to work for them.
So.
- Sell you knowledge.
- Sell your money.
- Sell your time to fix their problems.
- Sell courses to teach people about software.
sell your money? that's new...
Crazy right?
You will never make real money by selling your time
That's actually the model nowadays even for big companies like google/microsoft, they give you all these services email, calendar, video conferences, docs, disc space,,,,all online and for free but also have premium services on top of them. We have other examples, facebook, Canonical with Ubuntu, Red Hat.... As you said it's either a excuse or they're more technical then business oriented
Selling software directly is an outdated model. What people should be selling instead should be the convenience of the distribution. You could "sell" the software on a main website, but what they are really paying for is a guarantee that the software is legit. Since the software is open source, anyone can just offer the code for free somewhere which many people will download, but not everyone would want to take a chance downloading something from some random somebody. Even if people could view the code on GitHub, not everyone that downloads it would read all the code. If people are afraid of running an executable from some torrent, why would anyone do it with free free software that the developers were not involved with?
Hey DT, what is your thoughts on "information should be free for everyone"
2:46 it's for free in my distro's repository, i don't even have to compile it
That's because someone compiled it for your distro, FOSS licenses allow that. Also distributing the pre-built binaries that you bought wouldn't be illegal either. Open Source that you purchased from the devs are still open source and free to distribute as well.
The distro devs could have bought a pre-built binary to put in their repository as well.
@@PenguinRevolution i know, it's licensed under GPL-2.0, I just meant that their model isn't really better than donation model (just asking people to donate when they install software or sth)
@@random6033 It's better in the way that they are giving somebody something for their donation. It's providing an incentive to donate to the project.
@@PenguinRevolution i mean you're not getting anything you can't get otherwise
Thank you have a great day.
I'm writing an addon for Blender right now. I plan on making it freely available as pay-what-you-will. I plan on making money by selling content packs. I think that's a good balance to strike.
sounds great! would be interesting to hear if enough were paying you when it's released.
@@iodreamify I'm not really doing it for the money... I just want to buy a new graphics card. I'm not planning to release till the start of the second quarter, June or July.
@@josephbrandenburg4373 yep, i understand. but it would still be interesting to see.
Are you the owner of distrowatch? I forgot can you please tell me I played sauerbraten its fun! Also tried open office for windows it was sorta like ms office and google workspace
they ubuntu source change name and sell with good pack. wait. no take debian and do same add ubuntu wallpaper or your own and call it ehat ever same debian based something lol
Beautiful yard
I made money from FOSS. By using it for my work, as physicist and as IT contractor.
And by giving back - some of my stuff helped run a world chain of radio telescopes, listening to the whispers of the stars. That is worth a lot.
hey, DT. that's a great take. something i'd like to add that's worth mentioning is that FOSS already does a lot for SMBs by saving startup costs when it provides costless alternatives to mainstream software.
I like yr thinking
It used to be done through services that people offered around the software: Writing books, giving in person training services and video training services and support. Stuff like that.
What if you loan a friend money in order to find out whether they were your TRUE friend or not????
WindyTube
I
hey
Hey !
Ah mate you've made all the commies mad
First
You rock! :D
Damn you lol
Didn't DistroTube do a video on useless comments??
I think this one qualifies.
🤣
second
These companies are so out of the loop, they do not realize that the pirates actually help them spread their stuff and essentially give them new fans. So rather than blaming the pirates, blame yourself for being tied to a bad business deal that isn't very lucrative in today's world.
Don't say that to an artist because he'll beat you upside down. "I don't have money but I'll spread the word about you" all the time, thanks, but when do I actually get to eat something? You have a point about the business model but this mentality you give off is destructive.
@@theodorealenas3171 cool, but pro piracy is the way to go.
Except the software pirates are stealing software
aseprite
cloud. is one of the answer.