from Hacker News

The Problem with Commercial Open Source

by rushabh on 1/24/21, 3:25 PM with 5 comments

  • by eesmith on 1/24/21, 9:04 PM

    > do you want to make money from your product (rent) or from services around it. Rent is exactly how proprietary products make money.

    I didn't get this at all.

    If I have a free software product (GPLv3), and I require that you pay me $100 for me to send you a copy, how is that characterized as "rent"?

    I looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent for guidance:

    1) "Renting, an agreement where a payment is made for the temporary use of a good, service or property"

    Since you have a copy under the GPLv3, which is effectively permanent, that's not really applicable.

    (Also, proprietary software licenses can also be under a permanent license, so don't count as 'rent' under this definition.)

    2) "Economic rent, any payment in excess of the cost of production"

    That's a complicated definition that I didn't understand. I do see 'the total income is made up of economic profit (earned) plus economic rent (unearned).' So why is my commercial transaction for you to acquire GPLv3-licensed software from me 'unearned'?

    That "cost of production" is not simply the labor+goods cost but includes opportunity cost. Which can be quite high when deciding to distribute free software instead of proprietary software. So I don't see how choosing to "sell free software" (as RMS describes it) is reasonably described as "rent".