logoalt Hacker News

richwatertoday at 2:24 PM4 repliesview on HN

What business model do MIT licensed projects even have? If you want to offer support contracts and actually make people use them, don't use MIT. You can't have you cake (accepting public contributions and free labor) and eat it (sole profiteering) too.


Replies

Zigurdtoday at 3:26 PM

RMS addressed the business model from the very beginning: it's services and consulting. He practiced what he preached.

You might think that's got a very low ceiling. But, even though it's a bad example in many ways, OpenAI showed that the ceiling is very high. And if you're morally flexible even higher.

show 2 replies
bchtoday at 4:02 PM

> If you want to offer support contracts and actually make people use them, don't use MIT. You can't have you cake (accepting public contributions and free labor) and eat it (sole profiteering) too.

I can't speak to how successful it is, but Daniel/Curl have been running with this model[0][1] for years. Probably not too different from 'drh and SQLite[2][3].

[0] https://curl.se/support.html

[1] https://rock-solid.curl.dev/

[2] https://sqlite.org/support.html

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49272832

kccqzytoday at 3:39 PM

Red Hat grew on GPL licensed projects to become a $34 billion business. Canonical does the same except it’s Ubuntu not RHEL and charges more than Red Hat.

You really underestimate the value of support contracts.

show 1 reply
bigstrat2003today at 4:13 PM

I'm not seeing how MIT licensing has anything to do with your ability to use support contacts as a business model. Yeah, nothing constrains the potential customer to purchase support, but that's just as true of GPL licensed software. I can download GPL software and never pay a dime for a support contract, just like MIT software.