Hacker News Reader

Comment by insomniacity | Hacker News Reader

You sound like you're describing https://standardnotes.org/ !

(Not linked, just a happy paying user)

Is it completely open source + optional paid hosting (I spent a few minutes reading but wasn't sure.)

FWIW: Open Source client + server with optional paid hosting is my favourite. And it is not just words: I've been paying a few hosting services, both commercial and open source, for a few years.

I like the assurance of open source but I often prefer to pay the people who make it to host it.

A bit OT, but honest question: would it bother you if it was almost-open-source, that is, if license forbid leechers (other cloud providers selling competitive offering)?

I am thinking of releasing a product under Apache + Common Clause, Zero License, Business Source License or similar, maybe with GPL timebomb. Basically, feel free to use, improve and share, but don't sell or offer it as a service to 3rd parties. I would love it if normal users could safely use the product and share improvements, but would still like to have a chance at building a business model which didn’t involve donations or selling just support (I want to be incentivized to build a great UX). Which means I am selling convenience, and probably can't compete with others if they can offer the same without the cost of development.

Since you sound like exactly the target audience, would such a license appeal to you, or would you reject it up-front?

I use StandardNotes and the Open Source aspect attracted me. I can run the parts if the company goes away. Today, I’ll pay SN a reasonable fee for convenience and future additions.

The competition is Evernote if the software isn’t free. I feel like SN seeks convenience now. Licensing games are just another commercial competitor.

That's still completely opensource to me. It's just not Libre software as Richard Stallman would put it. I still think it's an attractive option for a lot of software and wouldn't deteur many users, as most people wouldn't even think of reselling it.

No the OP, but as someone who is happy to pay for hosting, with free software, I would not be happy at all with your suggestion. In fact the original topic is really the reason I would not be happy. The original poster is asking how to build a new service since their service provider has become unresponsive. This is really the last straw. Ideally, as a consumer, you want to be able to potentially move to a new provider of the service using the same software. If you have to change software to change providers, then you are always having problems trying to get matching features, matching workflows, matching data stores, etc, etc. Interestingly, this is also why I don't generally use "open core" unless I only use the "open core" part and pay for hosting. Having the source code is useless because if the user wanted to host their own, they could use free software to begin with. They want hosting.

I think as a service provider, you have to think pretty hard about the service you are providing. Having a cloud based server and keeping it up is pretty basic work. This is exactly why SaaS is so popular -- the actual day to day service is extremely small and cheap. The problem, as you very correctly perceive, is that larger providers can undercut you, very, very easily (because you are buying the actual service from them). They can cut out the middle man.

So for a full free software service, you need to provide something other than hosting as the service. To be honest, one of the really attractive things about SaaS is that you go back to a model where you have an upfront, single time development cost for the software and then you sell it over and over and over again. In other words, you have a constant price with near infinite scaling.

I think this is impossible with free software. I might be wrong, but I've thought through it for a number of decades and I can't see a way to do it :-). With free software (that has no intrinsic hardware or extensive person-oriented service involved) I think you have to charge for actual development time. I think there are inventive ways to do this (many of which have not been tried), but there is no way around it.

I think what you are intending to offer has very little benefit for the user. Certainly, as someone who wants source code, I would not touch something with that license with a ten foot pole. If I were you, I would just go with SaaS or Open Core and be done with it. If you are really intent on providing useful source code for the user, then I think you have to come up with something that they want to buy. That thing has to be something that other people will have trouble competing against. For most programmers, that means development services.

Thank you (and siblings) for an answer! I especially appreciate the reasons given.

You are of course correct - requesting a commercial license for any potential competitor will limit users' options with respect to the provider they choose. It does however grant them the option to self-host. While not that convenient, it still provides some incentive for me to try better, and is a backup plan for users if I become unresponsive. Better for users (and safer for me) than Open Core I think?

That said, the decision is not final yet, and I'm also not satisfied with any license I checked (closest is Common Clause, but what happens with snippets of code, reused in other, maybe foss projects?). Thank you!

Just to be clear (without being annoying I hope), there will be a class of users (myself included) who won't touch it. I would consider it a proprietary license. It isn't a kind of open source compromise. Having said that, there are a lot of considerably worse proprietary licenses. Good luck on your endeavours!

Yes, it is clear, and I appreciate your thoughts a lot! I am just hoping that this class of users is in minority... ;) Good luck to you too, and thank you!

The apps and server are both open source. There is also free hosting. The bit that is not open source is the "Extended" paid subscription which includes all this: https://standardnotes.org/extensions

Open source is split across multiple repos:

https://github.com/standardfile/ruby-server

https://github.com/standardnotes/web

https://github.com/standardnotes/desktop

https://github.com/standardnotes/mobile

Off topic, but it's humorous to me that the "Web" logo is simply the Chromium logo.

Arguably more depressing than humorous!

I do like that there is a "download" page for the web version though, which "downloads" a 301 redirect.

I see that on Reddit also. When viewing their site from a phone, a pop-up says "view on our app? [Reddit Logo] View on web? [Chromium logo]"

Silly goose, I'm never leaving Firefox.

For me it shows the [Reddit logo] and [Safari logo], since I'm on IOs. So it seems like it pulls the standard browser...

> standard browser

Why would Chromium be the standard browser for Android? I have never had that installed on my phone.

Edit: Yes I know Google develops the Chrome products. Down-voting my post without discussion is pretty useless, no?

Because it is the standard browser that comes with OEM Android. Google phone, Google browser.

Is that true? I've always seem Chrome but never Chromium.

Maybe the reddit popup just pick a ‚standardish‘ browser depending on the OS. I only have Safari on my phone...

It's the new "e" icon.

I’ve been using standard notes and the client isn’t great. It makes me choose between editor addons when what I want is just one really good editor.

Example: I want features found in the advanced editor but also in the markdown editor

Yeah, that's fair. I would mention that to them - they are responsive to feedback when it doesn't conflict with the longevity and stability requirements.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com