I have a ton of closed-source software in my projects folder. That's not a business model. Neither is open-source software, where I take some of that stuff and throw it up on GitHub.
A business model is where I repeatably create value for others and receive money in exchange. A modern software company can do that in a variety of ways, including selling training, documentation, support, custom features, consulting, services, and licensing.
Both open- and closed-source companies do that. They have business models. But open source on its own is not a business model, and neither is closed source.
And what's definitely not a business model is releasing something as open source and hoping that somebody gives me money. Businesses don't just happen. Somebody has to build them.
Sure, there are differences, but I'm not sure that's one of them. Can you name some companies where that has happened? I'm pretty sure I can name a lot more where it hasn't.
I make some software. You like what it does and want to use it. I ask for money. If the price is right you give me cash and I give you an executable file.
How is that not a business model?
And what's definitely not a business model is releasing something as open source and hoping that somebody gives me money. Businesses don't just happen. Somebody has to build them.
I never claimed open source was a business model. I said the inability to easily monetize OSS is a limiting factor on its development because people need to eat and pay rent.
If you are now saying that open source is not a business model, then we agree. As far as I could tell, you were arguing vigorously that it was.
> I make some software. You like what it does and want to use it. I ask for money. If the price is right you give me cash and I give you an executable file. How is that not a business model?
That business model is selling executables that let your customers do some unspecified thing they care about. I have paid money to people who give me executables for both open- and closed-source software, so that description applies to both.
Making and releasing open-source software to the public, though, is not a business model. Which is why the Octave developer is struggling.
> I said the inability to easily monetize OSS is a limiting factor on its development because people need to eat and pay rent.
Right. But that's not specific to open-source software. Needing to eat, etc, is a limiting factor on making all software. And making almost anything else.
I have a ton of closed-source software in my projects folder. That's not a business model. Neither is open-source software, where I take some of that stuff and throw it up on GitHub.
A business model is where I repeatably create value for others and receive money in exchange. A modern software company can do that in a variety of ways, including selling training, documentation, support, custom features, consulting, services, and licensing.
Both open- and closed-source companies do that. They have business models. But open source on its own is not a business model, and neither is closed source.
And what's definitely not a business model is releasing something as open source and hoping that somebody gives me money. Businesses don't just happen. Somebody has to build them.