
Open Source: From Community to Commercialization - kjhughes
https://a16z.com/2019/10/04/commercializing-open-source/
======
carapace
> One of my favorite anecdotes from the early days of open source – when it
> wasn’t yet even called open source, and was just “free software”

Goddamned that's annoying, speaking as a Free software partisan.

On the off chance that anyone reading this doesn't already know what I mean...

"Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software"
[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-
point....](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html)

> The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same range
> of programs. However, they say deeply different things about those programs,
> based on different values. The free software movement campaigns for freedom
> for the users of computing; it is a movement for freedom and justice. By
> contrast, the open source idea values mainly practical advantage and does
> not campaign for principles. This is why we do not agree with open source,
> and do not use that term.

~~~
jasode
In the isolated context of the quote you pulled, the authors were talking
about _history_ (note that they wrote _" the early days of open source"_) and
they're correct: in the time period _before_ Eric Raymond et al popularized
the term "open source" (~1998?)[0], we also called non-GPL software _" free
software"_.

Rummaging through my archives, I looked at a README.TXT I wrote in 1992 for a
software utility (including the C source code) I gave away for $0 and I used
the term "free software" even though it was _not_ GPL. (I wasn't even aware of
GPL back then.) Today, my software would be called an "open source permissive
license".

In other words, RMS's essay from 2007 _" Why Open Source misses the point of
Free Software"_ may try to _educate_ us on the difference between "free" vs
"open source" but it _can 't go back in time_ and rewrite my historical usage
of "free" in my README.TXT in 1992.

[0] usage trend of label "open source" after 1998 essay "Cathedral & Bazaar":
[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=open+source&ye...](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=open+source&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3)

~~~
tuukkah
_> I used the term "free software" even though it was not GPL. (I wasn't even
aware of GPL back then.) Today, my software would be called an "open source
permissive license"._

Free Software doesn't have to be licensed under the GPL. Open Source licenses
and Free Software licenses are the same. Perhaps you're thinking of the
distinction between copyleft (GPL style) and non-copyleft (BSD style)?

~~~
jasode
_> Free Software doesn't have to be licensed under the GPL._

Yes, I understand that but using RMS's criteria in his 2007 essay (subsection
_" Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source"_), my 1992
software (without strong copyleft protection) would be "open source" and not
"free software". My point is that I called it _" free software"_ even though
it violates RMS's definition because the alternative label of _" open source"_
didn't gain currency yet.

Also, the _" free as in libre vs free as in beer"_ wasn't a well-known meme in
1992 either:
[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=free+as+in+bee...](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=free+as+in+beer&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=15&smoothing=3)

~~~
tuukkah
Which criterion did your software violate in RMS's definition—I fail to see
anything applicable in the subsection that you point to?

~~~
jasode
_> Which criterion did your software violate in RMS's definition_

When I gave away my software for free (e.g. on a disk), it would have files
such as:

\- foobar.exe (requires non-free proprietary Microsoft C compiler to rebuild
this exe -- because of MS specific API calls)

\- foobar.c (had some proprietary C code in it)

Basically, a user could _run_ my software for $0, but they couldn't _rebuild_
the executable using non-free tools. But in 1992, I wasn't aware of RMS's
philosophy about _" free as in libre"_ so I (and many others) just called it
"free software".

------
marknadal
This is a fantastic article with valuable knowledge, though it really should
be stressed that the conclusion are still opinions.

Open Core as 2.0 is a terrible ideology, as it is basically crippleware.

Open Source 3.0 as blockchain tokens is a junk idea promoting ponzi ideology.

Or the claim that Open Source will be advertising driven is just a horror
waiting to happen as we've already seen with FB.

None of these are good ideas.

What is important to observe tho is that Open Source has driven all of the
value creation that he's talked about. WITHOUT cheap memes or gimmicks. For 30
years!!!

OSS is just fine and will continue just fine, and I predict, will even
transform other industries (medical, manufacturing, etc.) with the same type
of value add.

~~~
tuukkah
> _For 30 years!!! [--] OSS is just fine and will continue just fine_

Don't you see the threats? Past performance vs future predictions?

------
jinqueeny
Very informative. Curious of what others think of the measurements of the
three pillars of open source:

\- Project-Community Fit: GitHub stars

\- Product-Market Fit: Downloads

\- Value Market Fit: Revenue

~~~
hobofan
The first two are total bullshit metrics.

Basically any Github metric in isolation doesn't mean much. Anecdotally, I
once worked on a ML framework in Rust[0]. For at least a few months after
release the metrics looked good on paper (Top 5 Rust project by stars at the
time) and also had a few smaller contributors. Sadly next to no actual
adoption and no healthy community around it that was able to pick it up after
we had to stop maintenance.

Downloads are about as bad. Just have one or a few users that have CI or
deployment patterns that download the package a lot, and your numbers lost any
meaning.

[0]: [https://github.com/autumnai/leaf](https://github.com/autumnai/leaf)

~~~
jinqueeny
Thanks for sharing and I am sorry for your project. It was a cool idea. Any
idea why no actual adoption? Is this possibly because of the product-market
fit mentioned in this post?

I am thinking aloud here: maybe the product-market fit, project-community fit
and the value-market fit were not so clearly separated or sequential but more
interrelated from the very beginning. You have to find the value-market fit
and define the business problem first and then the community will thrive? The
value to the community is not only what the project can bring to the business,
but also the value this project can bring to its contributors and adopters.

~~~
hobofan
> Any idea why no actual adoption?

I would say the main reason probably was that it wasn't really usable. We
first optimized for performance, so that we were able to show that we are
competitive there and neglected usability. Anything more than a simple MNSIT
example was incredibly verbose.

Adoption would've probably come with some time (and there was quite some
interest in the niche), but the project was a last ditch effort of our dying
startup, so we didn't have enough time really.

