Great feedback! Thank you.
Here’s my perspective: Sometimes to make money, you got to spend a little. Also, I’ve been at startups and small companies that literally have said x works for Google, so we will try it out.
I did suggest other options like just generally contributing to open source and encouraging your teammates to do so. That option is free to your company.
What are better approaches that you would take to convince your boss?
What are better approaches that you would take to convince your boss?
That depends very strongly on what the company even does. When your main product isn't the software itself, your boss might mostly be worried about giving away a valuable technological advantage to competitors; which they could then adapt for themselves without sharing these changes. There might be a good counter-argument, but I can't really think of anything; giving away your code really is just that.
But there's also the question of potentially selling said software in the future, which no sane business person will give up, unlikely as it may be. If there's a 1% chance that you might want to sell your software to your competitors in the future, making it open source would reduce that chance to 0%.
And last but not least, making software open-source would be a time-sink. It might not be too bad, but somebody will have to interact with potential contributors and users, unless there are none, in which case, neither would there be any benefit for the company other than giving away work.
Things might look different if software was the actual product of the company; in that case, the business model is the most important factor. If you sell copies of your program, making it open source would obviously require completely changing this.
If the software is provided as a service, or most of the money actually comes from maintenance, then a switch to OS might be a lot easier to sell to your boss. But even then, the most important question you'll have to answer is "Why won't customers just make a copy of our software and self-host it without paying us anything?".
The answer definitively change depending on the situation, but for this exemple your business who don't use the software as core business could mutualise the production if it would be used by mutliple companies, which could also allocate internal ressources too to support it.
If the benefit of the software is important for multiple companies, they might find an interest. And more the culture can move in this direction more base will be available to start with, or reuse someone else software to earn some time. It can be a way to participite in something who may benefit more in the future.
You're right, open source might be time consuming. It shouldn't be done in this idea of saving ressources, but as an investment to get benefit from open source development.
In the case of SaaS, other people will be able to deploy it, but to do so it need times and knowledge about the software, which you have. It's where you can make money. Other companies may provide, deploy your software, but it can be a way to provide service to a big enough demand that you can share.
Until FAANG do not reuse your software in a predatory manner...
Companies which lives by selling closed source software is not an appropriate model for open source. It's a matter of time before it change, some actors will have to reinvent themself. Business models are switching, a transition is necessary. How long windows will survive ? Bet are open !
If your closed source solution is having an high demand, it can be a matter of time to have an open source alternatives, right ? And where those application would be in 5, 10 years, when they will be efficient enough ? Pervasiveness of open source is something to consider.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but...
All your boss will hear:
1. "If we spend money, time and manpower, it won't be a problem"
2. "We will feel better about our code but it won't make more money"
3. "It works for google, so it must also work for our 50-employee company"
4. "See point 1. about spending money"
Great feedback! Thank you.
Here’s my perspective: Sometimes to make money, you got to spend a little. Also, I’ve been at startups and small companies that literally have said x works for Google, so we will try it out.
I did suggest other options like just generally contributing to open source and encouraging your teammates to do so. That option is free to your company.
What are better approaches that you would take to convince your boss?
That depends very strongly on what the company even does. When your main product isn't the software itself, your boss might mostly be worried about giving away a valuable technological advantage to competitors; which they could then adapt for themselves without sharing these changes. There might be a good counter-argument, but I can't really think of anything; giving away your code really is just that.
But there's also the question of potentially selling said software in the future, which no sane business person will give up, unlikely as it may be. If there's a 1% chance that you might want to sell your software to your competitors in the future, making it open source would reduce that chance to 0%.
And last but not least, making software open-source would be a time-sink. It might not be too bad, but somebody will have to interact with potential contributors and users, unless there are none, in which case, neither would there be any benefit for the company other than giving away work.
Things might look different if software was the actual product of the company; in that case, the business model is the most important factor. If you sell copies of your program, making it open source would obviously require completely changing this.
If the software is provided as a service, or most of the money actually comes from maintenance, then a switch to OS might be a lot easier to sell to your boss. But even then, the most important question you'll have to answer is "Why won't customers just make a copy of our software and self-host it without paying us anything?".
Understood!
The answer definitively change depending on the situation, but for this exemple your business who don't use the software as core business could mutualise the production if it would be used by mutliple companies, which could also allocate internal ressources too to support it.
If the benefit of the software is important for multiple companies, they might find an interest. And more the culture can move in this direction more base will be available to start with, or reuse someone else software to earn some time. It can be a way to participite in something who may benefit more in the future.
You're right, open source might be time consuming. It shouldn't be done in this idea of saving ressources, but as an investment to get benefit from open source development.
In the case of SaaS, other people will be able to deploy it, but to do so it need times and knowledge about the software, which you have. It's where you can make money. Other companies may provide, deploy your software, but it can be a way to provide service to a big enough demand that you can share.
Until FAANG do not reuse your software in a predatory manner...
Companies which lives by selling closed source software is not an appropriate model for open source. It's a matter of time before it change, some actors will have to reinvent themself. Business models are switching, a transition is necessary. How long windows will survive ? Bet are open !
If your closed source solution is having an high demand, it can be a matter of time to have an open source alternatives, right ? And where those application would be in 5, 10 years, when they will be efficient enough ? Pervasiveness of open source is something to consider.
Thank you!!