

Ask HN: Should I release a SaaS with double license or not? - atmosx

Hello,<p>I started a side project for our family business. Now I reckon that it might have value as a SaaS, for others.<p>I don’t know if I should make the project Open Source or not. I’m keen to opt for a solution where there is an open source version, which you could install it on your server and a ‘pro’ version with additional features which I run on my servers (with API, integrations, etc.).<p>I would like to have some advice on the matter from people who had to make the same choice before.<p>Another issue that might arise in case I opt for the double-license is what license should the open source version be released under. I took a look at sidekiq[1] which I think uses this model successfully and uses a proprietary license for ‘pro’ and LGPL instead of BSD or MIT licenses. I don&#x27;t know why they went with LGPL over the other two though.<p>Comments and thoughts are more than welcome, thanks!<p>[1] http:&#x2F;&#x2F;sidekiq.org
======
logn
I made this choice and went with Affero GPL. This theoretically satisfies: (1)
other devs building libre software, (2) non-tech-savvy customers who can still
buy service, and (3) tech savvy entrepreneurs who want to limit lock-in and
also need a compelling reason to spend money (limit licensing liabilities).

Some people are adamantly opposed to AGPL and prefer GPL or BSD. In my view,
it's either because they fall into bucket 3 above or they simply prefer
freedom to make software non-free. However, my outlook is that AGPL is the
only actually free license and it also coincides with my business model (which
involves essentially selling extra license rights or SaaS).

~~~
atmosx
Thanks I didn't look at AGPL, will do!

------
mindcrime
So here are a few thoughts:

1\. A "pro" for going open-source: It is a comfort to your customers, knowing
that if you go out of business, that they can continue using the software -
either by hosting it themselves, or paying someone to do so.

2\. If your product is OSS, it is also a near-perfect guarantee against
"vendor lock-in" which is a big deal to some people. As the old saying goes
"one of the best ways to get people to use your product, is to make it easy
for them to stop using your product." IOW, people will be scared to risk
investing in using your thing, and getting locked in, when they aren't yet
assured of the value it offers. If you make it easier to leave, it's easier
for them to make the initial plunge. It sounds paradoxical, but it seems to
hold true.

3\. Another "pro" is that you may actually get some contributions from the
community, which could help you advance your project faster than you can do it
alone.

4\. A "con" is that some customers may elect to host it themselves and not pay
you, instead of using your SaaS. My feeling is that those people were never
really your customers to begin with, and represent no big loss. People who pay
for SaaS aren't really paying for the software, they're paying for the idea
that you will take care of making it Just Work, keep the servers running,
handle scaling, backups, etc.

5\. Another "con" is that a competitor can use your code and setup a competing
service.

All told, I'm a fan of the OSS route, but I'm also an Open Source ideologue,
so I'm not exactly unbiased. So take these comments for what they're worth.
:-)

~~~
atmosx
Hello,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm more keen to open source, because like
you, I love the open source ideology.

Point '4' was all I needed to read actually. I'm not worried about point '5' I
don't believe my _idea_ is _that good_ on one hand and I'm not afraid of the
competition :-)

Thanks again!

