Talk:Business models for open-source software

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as High-importance).

Requested move

Business models for open source software → Business models for open-source software — like Open-source software — Neustradamus (✉) 18:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to Talk:List of free and open source software packages#Requested move. Jafeluv (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion was closed no concensus after 34 days Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Models first, then use examples as illustrations of those models.

The examples should not be a separate section with just a long list. It is important that the examples appear in context. It is better to list different business models and then fill those with examples as illustration to a better understanding of the models.--wmasterj (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated examples

Sun for instance, was aquired by Oracle. Other examples (Linspire's situation has changed) are also outdated. Jontajonta (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split "Selling services" into "Selling support and training" and "Selling software as a service"

The two are quite different in the way they go about things, so shouldn't be grouped.

I agree, i was also planning adding software sever side only. Shaddim (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging "Introduction" with "Challenges"

I don't think the "Introduction" section is strictly necessary (isn't that what the article head is for?), and the text there pretty much leads into "Challenges" anyway. Although "Introduction" needs a lot of touchup, grammatically-speaking, I hesitate to remove it entirely because there appear to be valuable cross-article links and citations in there. --Ernstkm (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Ernstkm (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about renaming "Introduction" to "Challenges" (and removing the second one)? Shaddim (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest getting rid of the whole challenges section. It's far too opinionated with almost no citations (and I can't think of possible citations either). Just list the different licenses describe them.Rigbypcw (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I have a different opinion. While more citations would be nice, the differences and challenges for traditional business in a open-source context are the core aspect of this article. Shaddim (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

some articles about challenges and models on open-source business (some might extract citations and refs from it): http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10027093-16.html http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/11-open-source-business-models/5371 http://www.openhealthnews.com/articles/2012/open-source-business-models-more-depth-view http://kellblog.com/2011/06/19/open-source-business-models-revisited/ http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-12-01/open-source-the-model-is-brokenbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/businessofopensource http://www.fitt-for-innovation.eu/index.php?id=fitt_os_business_model http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/07/06/editorial-apple-google-and-the-failure-of-open Shaddim (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: good collection http://www.opensourcestrategies.org/ Shaddim (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the sections and tagged it for added references.Fgnievinski (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for a new model - "Restricted Trademark Use" (or similar)

Thinking of http://www.moodle.org and the business model that supports it, and I don't think it fits in any of the defined models. The model revolves around a network of commercial partners who are authorised to use the Moodle name and logo (see http://moodle.com/trademarks/ for more detail), and in turn provide a proportion of revenue to the Moodle Trust, which in turn funds core development. Should this be added as a new classification of business model? Is Moodle unique in using this model? Any thoughts appreciated before I attempt to update the actual page - and apologies for any faux pas in this post - first time posting to a Talk page in a long while. Mark.drechsler (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, some additional business case could be clearly added if you find a reliable secondary source (press or academic reception) which has seen, named and discussed that business case. regards Shaddim (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shaddim :) Would http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/cs-moodle be a sufficient reference to the model? Was written by Martin Dougiamas, the founder of Moodle and the person who set up the Moodle Partner business model. If this is sufficient I can add in a proposed edit to the actual page. Thanks for the feedback. Mark.drechsler (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks while this is a well written article it fits not the requirement for a good source: not a secondary source (meaning a journalist writes about it) and conflict of interest (a project unrelated person is required). Some more explanation is given here regards Shaddim (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one will suffice -- your thoughts? Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think yes. After (very long) contemplating I came to the conclusion that this "model" and moodle is long lasting and relevant enough to be added. Shaddim (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funding sources table

Some useful deleted material can be found here. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge

I plan to dump Open-source software#Funding into Business models for open-source software#Introduction. Your thoughts? Fgnievinski (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, expand it with the content from there. Hope you work on both sides? some summary on Open-source software#Funding ? Shaddim (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got the ball rolling. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sponsorship vs. donations

Should sponsorship from companies be treated the same as donations from people? E.g., Apache, OSGeo, SFC, QGIS. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Business models for open-source software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100328123610/http://www.ftacademy.org:80/materials/fsm/5 to http://ftacademy.org/materials/fsm/5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funding section modified

I've just modified the "Funding" section. There was a "how" note, I suppose it was some kind of "Clarification needed" one.

English is not my mother tongue so, please, review it.

Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit. Looks good! I made a few tiny tweaks. zazpot (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Business models for open-source software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Blender!

Where can we add Blender [[1]] a very useful 3D animation software..

-- YN Desai  ^Discuss  —Preceding undated comment added 14:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we? Does Blender have a unique business model? Is there a reliable source commenting on their business model that we could base this proposed content on? - MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MrOllie I am not expert at business model, I was expecting blender to be fitted in one of business model where it would fit. One thing that is unique about it is that community purchased the code in 2002 to make it opensource. Also there is a Blender foundation created.^[1] -- YN Desai ^Discuss 13:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Blender Foundation".

Review of this article by Frank Karlitschek

At FOSDEM right now is going through many of the items in this article, quite useful as a third party expert source to summarise the core concepts and prioritise examples. https://fosdem.org/2020/schedule/event/gpl_and_business/ Nemo 12:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selling propertiary additives

Why is this called "open-source business models" when it's not? 2A02:A311:233E:B200:DE8B:28FF:FE2E:E0EB (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Blender Foundation".

[1]