Should I open source my company? (2022)
Open‑sourcing a startup’s core product promises better developer trust, adoption, and contributions, but raises hard questions about how to make money and defend against larger competitors or cloud providers repackaging the code. Commenters weigh models ranging from permissive licenses to AGPL and BSL, open core, dual licensing, and “source available,” and note that many successful companies eventually tighten licenses once hyperscalers or free‑riders appear. Several argue open source works best when the paid value is in hosting, compliance, support, or adjacent services, while others caution that without strong execution, brand, and a clear monetization plan, open sourcing can be more ideology than viable business strategy.
Licensing and Cloud Competition
- Many argue permissive licenses (MIT/Apache) let large cloud providers repackage and sell without contributing back.
- AGPL/SSPL/BSL are discussed as ways to deter “freeriding” SaaS providers, but some note these are not OSI-approved or “truly free,” which angers parts of the free‑software community.
- Dual licensing (AGPL + commercial) is proposed as a compromise, but requires CLAs and may not actually attract contributions.
- Several commenters think picking a protective license early is better than later “rug‑pull” relicensing.
Monetization Models and Sustainability
- Common revenue paths: hosting, support, consulting, paid add‑ons, or “open core.”
- Multiple people say it’s very hard to build a sizeable, self‑sustaining open‑source product business without VC; many famous projects changed licenses once big enough.
- Others report smaller but profitable examples funded by support, paid extensions, or custom development.
- There’s disagreement on how much of a company’s value is in code vs. sales/marketing/distribution; ranges from “code is 10%” to “code embodies years of problem‑solving.”
Self‑Hosting vs Managed Services
- One camp claims many “open-source SaaS” companies intentionally make self‑hosting painful and use OSS mainly as marketing.
- Others counter that for complex, scalable systems, managed hosting is inherently more valuable, not intentionally crippled.
- Even when self‑hosting is rare, access to source is valued for auditability, forking, and as a check on vendor abuse.
Government and Enterprise Markets
- Some advocate targeting civil government and defense as lucrative, contract‑driven funding for OSS, with concrete tactics ( teaming, ex‑official hires, SAM.gov bids).
- Others warn about bureaucracy, red tape, long sales cycles, and suggest starting with smaller local entities instead of federal agencies.
- Security, compliance, and on‑prem requirements often make support/consulting around open source sellable.
Community, Ideology, and Ethics
- Strong free‑software advocates emphasize user freedoms and oppose source‑available and open‑core as “cosplay.”
- More pragmatic voices treat source‑available as still useful in practice.
- Some worry about perverse incentives: under‑documenting or limiting OSS to push users to paid plans. Others insist good stewardship and feature parity are key to long‑term trust.
When Open Source Makes Sense (or Not)
- Works best when the product targets developers, when hosting/ops is the real value, or when the code is a tool rather than the primary moat.
- Less compelling if the main differentiation is proprietary IP and easy to clone once source is available.