Linux How does OpenSource make money?
- Thread starter anish_sha
- Start date
Donations Mostly. Like Wikipedia.
Although the product might be free, it comes with paid support. SO lots of organizations who for example use Linux like Red Hat, pay for the support. So that's how Red Hat gets its revenues.
Google makes its money from Ads.
Although the product might be free, it comes with paid support. SO lots of organizations who for example use Linux like Red Hat, pay for the support. So that's how Red Hat gets its revenues.
Google makes its money from Ads.
Money is made from support and services.
Also, look for s/w like Alfresco, SugarCRM, etc. They give basic edition free, but to do something heavy /enterprise class, you will need paid subscriptions for different editions and support structures. Most viable OSS s/w works like that.
Also, look for s/w like Alfresco, SugarCRM, etc. They give basic edition free, but to do something heavy /enterprise class, you will need paid subscriptions for different editions and support structures. Most viable OSS s/w works like that.
DigitalDude
Level G
by selling software, services, training and certifications.
opensource means the sourcecode is open and not proprietary. it does not mean any business model. some companies do happen to have some free stuff that is it. opensource != free(as in free beer).
_
opensource means the sourcecode is open and not proprietary. it does not mean any business model. some companies do happen to have some free stuff that is it. opensource != free(as in free beer).
_
anish_sha
Disciple
Just a query, I am installing openoffice, i am studying about it from online through forums, communities etc. In that case no benefit for the company who developed it right?
DigitalDude
Level G
a single company does not develop it. a lot of people contribute to an open source software like openoffice. recently Oracle was the owner of open office but they transferred it to the apache software foundation. Oracle did not get any profit from maintaining openoffice so they offloaded it to the apache foundation which is a not for profit organisation. so yeah in this case the people owning open office, the apache foundation, are not going to get any profit. but since the apache foundation is very popular and active (the famous apache web server) they will get lot of contributions towards further development and maintanence of openoffice from the opensource community.
_
Open-source isn't a business model. The profits of companies offering such products are usually made through offering services, collecting user data, ads, and in the case of many small time developers it is through donations.[DOUBLEPOST=1367944531][/DOUBLEPOST]
You are wrong here, open source doesn't have anything to do with money or profits. It just means that the source code is open for all to see, and modify too if the license grants it. There are many companies which deal exclusively with open source software and still make profits.
The best example is Android, which is the most popular open source O.S. But the OEM has to pay nearly $10 for the play store per device. So, in this way Android makes huge profits.
They need not pay to google if they use other stores like getjar etc...... This is the main reason why Ubisate was not having google play
They need not pay to google if they use other stores like getjar etc...... This is the main reason why Ubisate was not having google play
Open source means free license software which anyone can modify and re-distribute it to the public, that means core software is always free to use.
It mostly depends on the community as some charge money for giving support like RedHat.
They charge for services not license which often includes server cost,distribution charges and sometimes marketing.
Hi all,
Couple of things I feel are myths or not right which have been shared.
I disagree with digitaldude's take on Oracle and OpenOffice business.In fact the history is a bit deeper than that. From what little I know and what little I heard from friends who were working with Sun Microsystems at the time, and Sun Microsystems had become bureaucratic over-time. Both for technical and social reasons there was a talk for a fork well before Oracle took over Sun Microsystems which included all the FOSS which Sun had worked till date.
Few months down the line they wanted to close-source OpenOffice or make a commercial version while not taking the stakeholders both internally as well as externally. Many of the devs. who had been talking about a fork for quite sometime decided to make Libreoffice and do the development of features which they had been trying to push for years but not making headaway due to issues at Sun Microsystems. The first release of Libreoffice.org was under a year which the community i.e. almost all GNU/Linux distributions lapped up as well as their users and for good number of reasons. The Libreoffice people provided a roadmap for next couple of years, were doing work and perhaps most importantly were providing under acceptable LGPL license which meant people could use it commercially without fear of being sued.
Oracle seeing no external code contributions for OpenOffice and not wanting to burn any more money behind the project and with the whole PR disasters did one good thing, giving the code to Apache Foundation. Apache took sometime and IIRC the first release from the project came out just couple of weeks before.
The episode does have good lessons for everybody concerned and this one has actually turned to be positive for users as we now have two full-fledged productivity suites fighting for both mind-share, dollars and users while at the same time being able to take code from each other. Users benefit in such a scenario.
Couple of things I feel are myths or not right which have been shared.
I disagree with digitaldude's take on Oracle and OpenOffice business.In fact the history is a bit deeper than that. From what little I know and what little I heard from friends who were working with Sun Microsystems at the time, and Sun Microsystems had become bureaucratic over-time. Both for technical and social reasons there was a talk for a fork well before Oracle took over Sun Microsystems which included all the FOSS which Sun had worked till date.
Few months down the line they wanted to close-source OpenOffice or make a commercial version while not taking the stakeholders both internally as well as externally. Many of the devs. who had been talking about a fork for quite sometime decided to make Libreoffice and do the development of features which they had been trying to push for years but not making headaway due to issues at Sun Microsystems. The first release of Libreoffice.org was under a year which the community i.e. almost all GNU/Linux distributions lapped up as well as their users and for good number of reasons. The Libreoffice people provided a roadmap for next couple of years, were doing work and perhaps most importantly were providing under acceptable LGPL license which meant people could use it commercially without fear of being sued.
Oracle seeing no external code contributions for OpenOffice and not wanting to burn any more money behind the project and with the whole PR disasters did one good thing, giving the code to Apache Foundation. Apache took sometime and IIRC the first release from the project came out just couple of weeks before.
The episode does have good lessons for everybody concerned and this one has actually turned to be positive for users as we now have two full-fledged productivity suites fighting for both mind-share, dollars and users while at the same time being able to take code from each other. Users benefit in such a scenario.