

Open-source or proprietary? - BerislavLopac

I am part of a team developing a new software technology, and we have a bit of a dilemma: whether to make it open source or proprietary? The product in question will be a core technology -- one could call it a platform -- on top of which specific applications will be built, either by us or by other developments.<p>We are aware of the ups and downs of either approach, but are not certain what impact will they have. On one hand, open-sourcing it would make us able to create a wider base of developers familiar with it; on the other hand, we plan to build a profitable business on top of it, and fear that investors (whom we need to fund the R&#38;D) will be driven away by the incomplete ownership of the core.<p>What is your experience here? Companies such as OpenX and SugarCRM seem to be doing quite fine, but then they might be the extremes -- we'd never really hear of the failures, would we?
======
fiaz
1) Build a user base

2) Grow a substantial user base

3) Open source (iff your technology is clearly a commodity)

Don't do #3 until you've gone through steps #1 and #2. First you need a
platform that has users. Technology without users is like an object that is
never instantiated. Open-sourcing for the sake of open-sourcing makes as much
sense as promoting a new technology for the sake of new technology (ie
technology that doesn't really solve somebody's problem).

------
davidw
Not an easy problem, but just one nit to pick: open source does not
necessarily mean "incomplete ownership". Mysql, for instance, completely own
their code base. As does the FSF - they require copyright assignments.

