Sponsored Open Source

Sponsored Open Source is software released under an OpenSource license that is developed for money.

There are a number of models for this type of work.

your ideas here

The CoSource? web site has links to some Linux Journal articles on how to make money off of OpenSource software. Unfortunately, http://www.cosource.com isn't working right now. Maybe some of the ideas in those articles apply to SponsoredOpenSource.

Berlios (http://www.berliOS.de) provides a service where companies can post their software needs and groups of developers can make a offer to build the solution. Project, if accepted by the company, is done in a ClosedSource manner but the end result is licensed under an OpenSource license. The main target are mainly smaller companies where the idea is that a group of companies with similar needs get together to sponsor a project, thus splitting the cost.


The development of IvTools was supported for over six years in this manner, part of the time through consulting to an organization who had no interest in selling such capability, part of the time through employment in such an organization. Required a BSD-style copyright to keep open the possibility of embedding in proprietary products.


The most convincing arguments for OpenSource (or anything) are inherently selfish, especially when dealing with businesses. When I do normal consulting and wish to license some of my work as OpenSource, I provide a concrete financial incentive to my clients. Usually this takes the form of a lower rate for time spent on OpenSource work. I've used this approach twice and it was snapped up without argument. Both companies were OpenSource friendly, so it has yet to be tried in an ambivalent or hostile environment.

A simple rule of thumb is established before-hand about what is to be allowed as OpenSource and what is not. I usually go with

  1. Work on existing OpenSource projects remains OpenSource

  2. Anything specific to the company isn't OpenSource

  3. Anything critical to the company's success isn't OpenSource

  4. Everything else is open to negotiation.

The first is obviously important, and it overrides the rest. Obviously you don't want to fix up some existing project and then be disallowed from posting the patch. It also helps maintenance, as you don't have to keep a local set of patches.

#2 is to protect the consultant more than the client. A savvy client could declare random crap that isn't useful to anyone else OpenSource just to get the rate cut. #2 protects against that.

#3 is to protect the company. They obviously don't want to be giving away trade secrets to their competitors.

#4 could have been Everything else is OpenSource but I fear that might frighten off some clients as being too open ended.

-- MichaelSchwern (7 Oct 2001)


CategoryOpenSource


EditText of this page (last edited May 12, 2012) or FindPage with title or text search