Would you open source this?
I put https://isthmus.want.ch online over the weekend. Regardless of functionality, it's a JAR a user will download and run on their server infrastructure.
Given that it's not terribly hard to decompile a JAR and do a license-ectomy, is there a point in asking for money? I originally toyed with the idea of monthly subscription, but don't want the burden of support and new features which such a subscription would make customers expect to get. The site currently asks for a one-time fee, but that's basically because it's easier to switch to open source from there than the other way around.
So, would you open source Isthmus?
How simple it is to reverse engineer something doesn't dictate its value. For a good reverse engineer the large majority of applications are simple to reverse engineer, so should they all be free? N-o.
Host the endpoint yourself. Free for a few queries (very limited! it's to test, not to be enough to sustain their business), one simple monthly (or yearly if it fits, in the style of Carrd.co) plan.
You can think of complex pricing if/when you get enough traction.
Thanks for your input, I'll definitely consider hosting some kind of "getting started". Might be a very nice way of onboarding
I like what Isthmus offers!
Before making any decisions, you have to meditate what you want. If you want to make a contribution to the open source community, then just go for it. It you want to make money out of it, you should consider offering a service, like support, but it's not what you want.
If you want to sell your package, even if it could be reverse engineered, your only risk is someone using your tech and reselling it. It looks to me a bit far fetched. You could sell your source, for example (open source doesn't mean free). Remember that if the person 'stealing' would be a startup that at some point goes through an acquisition, there will be a lot of controls regarding plagiarism.
I am an open source enthusiast, but I believe it can't be everyone business, at some point you need an unfair advantage to move forward. I don't know how fast your development cycle is, but you could release for free an older version, and you say what would be new if you buy the package...
I know that I'd like to make a few bucks off Isthmus. What I don't is what to choose if the options were (a) nobody is paying and thus zero users, or (b) freeware Isthmus.
I think I'll leave it out there on a paid plan and see if I can get any sign ups in the next few weeks.
Seems fair. Test it and then decide, you can always open-source it.
By the way, I hope you comply with licensing terms (i.e. if you built on top of software with GNU license, etc...)
I'm curious about the licensing reference. I don't have any modifications on standard libraries, but of course several dependencies (JARs). They have a variety of licenses, but my understanding is that even GPL allows for using a JAR from an Open Source project (say Hibernate, LGPL) in a non-disclosed commercial product. Am I missing something?
It's hard to judge each individual case. There is a sentence in the GPL description that may explain the situation:
I guess there are going to be a lot of subtleties involved, but generally speaking, if you bundled dependencies into your package or if you ask the user to install those dependencies are two very different scenarios.
You can see some software which explicitly states what libraries where used and under which license they were released. Sometimes that would require to make the source code available, but the binaries are yours. That is the case of Red Hat and CentOS, or so many other 'Community Edition' software
Can't you open source a basic version and then sell the (closed-source) pro version with more features? In this way, ppl can try your product for free but then pay for the full-featured version.
Just an idea 😄