Open source software companies that go proprietary: A timeline  Full Document Contents/Articles/Open source software companies that go proprietary A timeline.md, Open source software companies that go proprietary: A timeline, Paul Sawers. > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [#opensource, #governance, #businessmodels, #proprietary, #timelines] > Author: [TechCrunch Staff] > Source: [TechCrunch](https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/15/open-source-companies-that-go-proprietary-a-timeline/) > Reference: [Article Link](https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/15/open-source-companies-that-go-proprietary-a-timeline/) > date created: 2024-12-16 17:00 > > # Title: Open Source to Proprietary: The Business Model Shift Timeline > <!-- deep-read:sections start --> ## Table of Contents: - [📍 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📖 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-diversity-equity-inclusion-and-belonging-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🔍 DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🔍 SEO Evaluation](#-seo-evaluation) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ## 📍 Summary: TechCrunch's timeline provides an in-depth analysis of open-source companies transitioning to proprietary business models, highlighting the strategic motivations, community backlash, and long-term effects. The article delves into how this shift affects innovation, collaboration, and the balance between profitability and open-source principles. --- ## 📖 Main Content: ### 🗒️ Notes: - **Historical Context**: - Shift to proprietary models is not new but has accelerated with monetization pressures. - Companies like MongoDB, Elastic, and Redis Labs led the charge. - **Strategic Motivations**: - Licensing changes to prevent large cloud providers from profiting without contributing. - Proprietary transitions often aim to protect revenue streams and intellectual property. - **Community Impact**: - Mixed reactions: Some applaud sustainability efforts, while others criticize the betrayal of open-source ideals. - Forks like OpenSearch emerge to maintain community-driven development. - **Implications for Innovation**: - Proprietary shifts may limit collaboration and innovation but secure resources for further development. --- ## 📖 References: 1. TechCrunch Staff. [Open Source Companies That Go Proprietary: A Timeline](https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/15/open-source-companies-that-go-proprietary-a-timeline/). --- ## 🗣️ Paraphrase: 1. **Original**: "The shift from open source to proprietary licenses often aims to curb exploitation by large cloud providers." **Paraphrased**: "Transitioning to proprietary licenses helps companies mitigate misuse by dominant cloud platforms." 2. **Original**: "Forks like OpenSearch reflect the open-source community’s resistance to proprietary transitions." **Paraphrased**: "Community-driven projects like OpenSearch exemplify pushback against companies abandoning open-source models." --- ## 📰 Newsletter: 🚀 **Open Source or Proprietary? A Growing Divide** TechCrunch examines the ongoing trend of open-source projects adopting proprietary licenses. While companies aim to protect their revenue streams, the open-source community responds with forks and debates over the principles of collaboration. [Read the full timeline](https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/15/open-source-companies-that-go-proprietary-a-timeline/). --- ## ✅ Action Items: - Host workshops on **ethical monetization strategies** for open-source projects. - Research the **economic sustainability** of dual-licensing models. - Highlight case studies of successful **community-managed forks**. --- ## 🧪 Hypotheses: 1. Proprietary licensing increases short-term profitability but reduces long-term community engagement. 2. Open-source forks can sustain innovation when core projects go proprietary. --- ## 📊 Methodology: - Analyze trends in contributor activity before and after license changes. - Conduct surveys among developers impacted by proprietary transitions. --- ## ❓ Questions: 1. What are the most sustainable monetization strategies for open-source projects? 2. How can companies balance revenue needs with community values? --- ## 🔮 Future Research: - Explore alternative licensing models that maintain community collaboration. - Assess the economic impact of forks on the original projects. --- ## 💡 Implications: - Proprietary transitions may encourage companies to redefine their relationship with contributors. - Forks could preserve innovation and competition within the ecosystem. --- ## 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment: - **Visual**: Include diagrams of licensing trends over time. - **Logical**: Provide analytical comparisons of open-source versus proprietary revenue models. - **Aural**: Add podcast discussions featuring company executives and community leaders. --- ## 📊 Accessibility Assessment: - **Alt Text**: Ensure detailed descriptions of licensing diagrams. - **Keyboard Navigation**: Verify that timeline interactions are fully keyboard-accessible. --- ## 🌍 DEIB Assessment: - **Cultural Relevance**: Examine licensing shifts from a global perspective. - **Psychological Safety**: Provide space for contributors to voice concerns without retaliation. --- ## ✅ Logical Validity: - **Strengths**: Clear cause-effect relationships between licensing changes and company goals. - **Weaknesses**: Lacks data on the long-term economic viability of forks. --- ## 🔍 DARVO Analysis: - **Deny**: Companies deny abandoning open-source values by emphasizing sustainability needs. - **Attack**: Critics are framed as misunderstanding business realities. - **Reverse Victim/Offender**: Companies present themselves as victims of exploitation by large cloud providers. --- ## 🔍 SEO Evaluation: - **Keywords**: "Open-source licensing," "Proprietary business models." - **Meta Description**: Summarize the article's focus on the implications of licensing transitions. - **Alt Text**: Optimize images to enhance accessibility and SEO. --- ## 🎯 Conclusion: The transition from open-source to proprietary models reflects the tension between sustainability and collaboration. Balancing profitability with open-source principles remains a significant challenge, driving innovation in licensing and community management. <!-- deep-read:sections end --> ## Highlights - Open source might be the building blocks of the modern software stack, but companies building businesses off the back of open source software [face a perennial struggle](https://techcrunch.com/2023/12/26/the-eternal-struggle-between-open-source-and-proprietary-software/) between keeping their community happy and ensuring that third parties don’t abuse the permissions afforded by the license. Many companies have launched with lofty open source ambitions, only to duck for cover once the realities of the commercial world hit home. It’s all about protecting their bottom line, especially with investors (public or private) to appease. But it can be difficult keeping tabs on all these changes, while also distinguishing those that have abandoned open source altogether and those that have sought sanctuary behind a less permissive (but still open source) license (as the [likes of Element](https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/06/decentralized-communication-protocol-matrix-shifts-to-less-permissive-agpl-open-source-license/) and [Grafana have done](https://grafana.com/blog/2021/04/20/grafana-loki-tempo-relicensing-to-agplv3/) in the past few years). As such, TechCrunch has compiled a timeline of open source companies that have changed course over the past decade. Movable Type (2013) [Movable Type](https://movabletype.com/) created an open source version (called MTOS) of its web publishing software [in 2007](https://techcrunch.com/2007/12/12/movable-type-finally-goes-open-source/) under a “copyleft” [GPL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License) open source license, a move that positioned it more closely to WordPress. [Such licenses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft) afford certain freedoms, but stipulate that all derivative work be released under a similar license. At any rate, this move lasted until 2013, at which point Movable Type’s [then owners](https://kottke.org/11/01/movable-type-sold-to-infocom) ditched the open source product, opining that it “hurt the adoption” of the commercial versions. “The community has not grown because of MTOS, nor have we seen download numbers that are any greater than our paid versions of Movable Type, so at this point it does not make any economic sense to continue to maintain and distribute something that is getting very little use,” the company [wrote at the time](https://movabletype.org/news/2013/07/clarifying_changes_to_movable_type_starting_with_mt6.html). SugarCRM (2014) Founded initially in 2004, customer relationship management (CRM) software maker [SugarCRM](https://www.sugarcrm.com/) announced in [2014](https://web.archive.org/web/20160224192704/https://community.sugarcrm.com/thread/18434) that it would no longer provide an open source “community edition,” noting that its two core markets — developers and first-time CRM users seeking a cheap solution — were not effectively being served by the product. The company did continue to support the last version (v6.5) of the open source incarnation for four more years, before pulling the plug [in 2018](https://sugarclub.sugarcrm.com/engage/b/sugar-news/posts/sugar-community-edition-open-source-project-ends). Redis (2018) [Redis](https://redis.io/), creators of the popular in-memory database store, has been transitioning away from its open source roots since 2018, when it moved its “Redis Modules” (e.g. [RediSearch](https://github.com/RediSearch)) from an open source [AGPL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Affero_General_Public_License) license to Apache 2.0 with a “[Commons Clause](https://commonsclause.com/)” addendum (i.e. commercial restrictions). The [following year](https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/21/redis-labs-changes-its-open-source-license-again/), Redis replaced the Commons Clause with its own Redis Source Available License ([RSAL](https://redis.io/legal/rsalv2-agreement/)) that promised to maintain some freedoms, but with notable restrictions related to competing database services — such as those provided by companies such as AWS. In many ways, this was a bellwether of what was to come, as other companies would later cite the “Amazon problem” as their reason for switching their license up. Earlier this year, Redis’ transition to the world of proprietary was complete, [when it announced](https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/21/redis-switches-licenses-acquires-speedb-to-go-beyond-its-core-in-memory-database/) that its core software would be shifting from a [BSD 3-Clause](https://opensource.org/license/bsd-3-clause) license to a dual-license setup — RSAL or server side public license ([SSPL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License)). MongoDB (2018) In 2018, [database company MongoDB](https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/28/mongodb-ceo-dev-ittycheria-interview-ai-hype-database-evolution/) moved away [from an open source](https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/16/mongodb-switches-up-its-open-source-license/) AGPL license to SSPL. The reason? Yup: to prevent cloud hyperscalers such as AWS from selling their own version of the service without contributing back. Confluent (2018) The “year that was” for open source license switching concluded with [Confluent](https://www.confluent.io/), a company that sells enterprise-grade tools and services around Apache Kafka, [switching](https://www.confluent.io/blog/license-changes-confluent-platform/) some of the components of its core platform from Apache 2.0 to a proprietary [Confluent Community License](https://www.confluent.io/en-gb/confluent-community-license/). This license stipulates a notable exclusion, one that forbids any competing service from offering Confluent’s wares “as-a-service.” Cockroach Labs (2019) [Cockroach Labs](https://www.cockroachlabs.com/), creator of the eponymous [distributed SQL database known as CockroachDB](https://techcrunch.com/2021/07/15/cockroachdb-ec1/), has continued to shake up its licensing ethos. In 2019, the company’s founders [announced](https://web.archive.org/web/20220315192317/https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/oss-relicensing-cockroachdb/) that they were moving CockroachDB from the permissive Apache 2.0 license to the Business Source License ([BUSL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Source_License)). Again, cloud hyperscalers such as AWS were the driving force behind the change. “We’re witnessing the rise of highly integrated providers take advantage of their unique position to offer ‘as-a-service’ versions of OSS [open source software] products, and offer a superior user experience as a consequence of their integrations,” the founders wrote at the time. Back in August, Cockroach Labs announced yet another change: [It would consolidate](https://techcrunch.com/2024/08/15/cockroach-labs-shakes-up-its-licensing-to-force-bigger-companies-to-pay/) its self-hosted product under a single enterprise license, as a way to encourage larger businesses to pay for the features they really need.  Sentry (2019) [Sentry](https://sentry.io/), the [$3 billion company](https://sentry.io/about/press-releases/sentry-raises-90-million-in-series-e-funding-to-expand-and-drive-adoption-of-developer-first-application-monitoring/) behind the [app performance monitoring platform](https://techcrunch.com/2021/02/18/app-monitoring-platform-sentry-gets-60-million-series-d-at-1-billion-valuation/) of the same name, was once available under a permissive [BSD 3-Clause open source license](https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause). But in 2019, the company [moved to](https://blog.sentry.io/relicensing-sentry/) BUSL, with co-founder and CTO David Cramer saying this was to counter “funded businesses plagiarizing or copying our work to directly compete with Sentry.” Last year, Sentry [launched its very own](https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/20/with-functional-source-license-sentry-wants-to-grant-developers-freedom-without-harmful-free-riding/) Functional Source License ([FSL](https://fsl.software/)), which is similar to BUSL but a little simpler. And as of this year, Sentry is putting its weight behind [a new licensing paradigm](https://techcrunch.com/2024/09/22/some-startups-are-going-fair-source-to-avoid-the-pitfalls-of-open-source-licensing/) dubbed “fair source,” w ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jf8d7ce39ra6kkvmsk1g02a9)) - Many companies have launched with lofty open source ambitions, only to duck for cover once the realities of the commercial world hit home. It’s all about protecting their bottom line, especially with investors (public or private) to appease. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jf8dhbfvbkptety64j0gymby))