5 ms·

Sad news, although it was obviously coming. Glad for Igor and others involved, but for me it is about time to start looking for alternatives.

by eminh 13y ago

cbg0 13y ago
You need to start looking for alternatives because they put out a slightly more advanced version only available to subscribers?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- eminh 13y ago
  Yes, I have never seen similar commercializations work well in the long term.
- troels 13y ago
  There's definitely some problems with this business model. On one hand, having a premium product means that Igor won't be contributing as much features to the open source version. On the other hand, it might discourage 3rd party developers from contributing features that are already covered by the premium product. There's probably some upsides as well, but it's certainly not without its issues.
  - ProblemFactory 13y ago
    Having a premium product could also mean that the open-source version grows faster. Having stable revenue means the ability to spend 100% of the time working on the project (instead of it being a side project), and hire more full-time employees. It is possible that as a result both the pro and open-source versions improve faster than in an only-volunteer open-source project.
    - troels 13y ago
      That's a good point. Although, so far, the project has evolved pretty well, so it doesn't seem to remedy a current problem. An alternative strategy to ensure it to do so in the future, could be to build a team of open source contributors to take charge of the further development of the project. As a user, I would prefer this, as it doesn't have the inherent conflicts of interests that a premium/free model has.
- mordae 13y ago
  This sucks. Why? Because having e.g. "Adaptive Multimedia Streaming" in the Pro version might mean that you won't get it in the open version since the professional product would lose it's edge. I would much rather see a model where features from the professional edition propagate to the open one after authors earn enough from subscriptions.
  - traskjd 13y ago
    Who says they won't do that? Not to mention: If you get value from Adaptive Multimedia Streaming then pay for it. Why should they necessarily provide you value for free? I'm personally getting tired of folks who ride the coat tails of "open source" because they simply read it as "I don't have to pay" rather than getting behind the ethos of what it's actually about. I don't know about your specific situation to say this is the case here, just venting on a pile of comments that are poo-pooing the fact these folks want to make some money from the MASSIVE value they are providing the world.
    - mordae 13y ago
      They are clearly shifting their priorities, which means that people building more open things can no longer rely on them participating. Instead, they have to treat them as a benevolent commercial entity dumping an open version their way. Not everyone is on the world for money.
      - pjmlp 13y ago
        Sure, we can do like in middle age and trade goods instead of money.
        lukasLansky 13y ago
        It's more like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy .
    - Xylakant 13y ago
      > Who says they won't do that? Well, they seem to have no stance on that - at least there's nothing on the page. So I tend to assume that pro features remain pro features. Nobody is demanding that the nginx folks provide value for free. However, I see problems with their chosen business model. The separation of "open source" vs. "closed source" is ill defined. What happens for example if some other party implements a solution that provides the same functionality as a pro feature? Would they accept a PR for that and then provide it as part of the free version or would they just keep the pro-approved version and let the OS-version play catch up? Is it possible to patch the pro version as it is possible to patch the os version? Syslog logging requires source patches atm and it doesn't look like the patch will ever be accepted in the mainline. There's a legal question as well: From the changelog it seems as if other people contributed patches - the implied idea is that they provided patches to an OS project, did they sign a CLA that says they're transferring all rights to the nginx company? Don't get me wrong: It's fair and square the authors want to make money of their project and they're certainly entitled to. I just see a bunch of issues cropping up.
eksith 13y ago
Is that really necessary? People didn't stop using RedHat via CentOS because upstream is a commercial product. Mainline Nginx is still available while this seems to be a value-added product with a bunch of extras.
- eurleif 13y ago
  The difference between RedHat and CentOS is basically just branding. That comparison doesn't make sense.
FooBarWidget 13y ago
And which alternatives are you thinking of?

Sad news, although it was obviously coming. Glad for Igor and others involved, but for me it is about time to start looking for alternatives.

by eminh 13y ago

Sad news, although it was obviously coming. Glad for Igor and others involved, but for me it is about time to start looking for alternatives.

cbg0 13y ago

You need to start looking for alternatives because they put out a slightly more advanced version only available to subscribers?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
eminh 13y ago
Yes, I have never seen similar commercializations work well in the long term.
troels 13y ago
There's definitely some problems with this business model. On one hand, having a premium product means that Igor won't be contributing as much features to the open source version. On the other hand, it might discourage 3rd party developers from contributing features that are already covered by the premium product. There's probably some upsides as well, but it's certainly not without its issues.
- ProblemFactory 13y ago
  Having a premium product could also mean that the open-source version grows faster. Having stable revenue means the ability to spend 100% of the time working on the project (instead of it being a side project), and hire more full-time employees. It is possible that as a result both the pro and open-source versions improve faster than in an only-volunteer open-source project.
  - troels 13y ago
    That's a good point. Although, so far, the project has evolved pretty well, so it doesn't seem to remedy a current problem. An alternative strategy to ensure it to do so in the future, could be to build a team of open source contributors to take charge of the further development of the project. As a user, I would prefer this, as it doesn't have the inherent conflicts of interests that a premium/free model has.
mordae 13y ago
This sucks. Why? Because having e.g. "Adaptive Multimedia Streaming" in the Pro version might mean that you won't get it in the open version since the professional product would lose it's edge. I would much rather see a model where features from the professional edition propagate to the open one after authors earn enough from subscriptions.
- traskjd 13y ago
  Who says they won't do that? Not to mention: If you get value from Adaptive Multimedia Streaming then pay for it. Why should they necessarily provide you value for free? I'm personally getting tired of folks who ride the coat tails of "open source" because they simply read it as "I don't have to pay" rather than getting behind the ethos of what it's actually about. I don't know about your specific situation to say this is the case here, just venting on a pile of comments that are poo-pooing the fact these folks want to make some money from the MASSIVE value they are providing the world.
  - mordae 13y ago
    They are clearly shifting their priorities, which means that people building more open things can no longer rely on them participating. Instead, they have to treat them as a benevolent commercial entity dumping an open version their way. Not everyone is on the world for money.
    - pjmlp 13y ago
      Sure, we can do like in middle age and trade goods instead of money.
      - lukasLansky 13y ago
        It's more like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy .
  - Xylakant 13y ago
    > Who says they won't do that? Well, they seem to have no stance on that - at least there's nothing on the page. So I tend to assume that pro features remain pro features. Nobody is demanding that the nginx folks provide value for free. However, I see problems with their chosen business model. The separation of "open source" vs. "closed source" is ill defined. What happens for example if some other party implements a solution that provides the same functionality as a pro feature? Would they accept a PR for that and then provide it as part of the free version or would they just keep the pro-approved version and let the OS-version play catch up? Is it possible to patch the pro version as it is possible to patch the os version? Syslog logging requires source patches atm and it doesn't look like the patch will ever be accepted in the mainline. There's a legal question as well: From the changelog it seems as if other people contributed patches - the implied idea is that they provided patches to an OS project, did they sign a CLA that says they're transferring all rights to the nginx company? Don't get me wrong: It's fair and square the authors want to make money of their project and they're certainly entitled to. I just see a bunch of issues cropping up.

eksith 13y ago

Is that really necessary? People didn't stop using RedHat via CentOS because upstream is a commercial product. Mainline Nginx is still available while this seems to be a value-added product with a bunch of extras.

eurleif 13y ago
The difference between RedHat and CentOS is basically just branding. That comparison doesn't make sense.

FooBarWidget 13y ago

And which alternatives are you thinking of?