What is an open source startup?
Who do you think should ‘count’ as an open source company? This could be an extremely straightforward question: Do you, or do you not, have an open source project?
This topic was inspired by this tweet:
So actually I tend to disagree that a company can’t be an open source company if it’s OSS is yet to be launched. I suppose it depends on details. Does this company have an established commercial product, and is just waiting around for the right time to launch the open source version? In that case, I might say they’re not an open source company until there’s at least some serious relationship with an open source project.
But what if it’s a stealth startup that has no product yet, and the first thing they launch is going to be the open source project? Does that company have the right to call themselves an ‘open source’ company while they develop the project in stealth mode, presumably to open source it whenever they feel reasonably confident that it doesn’t suck? I personally think so, though there’s certainly an argument that if you’re in stealth mode, you shouldn’t be talking about your startup at all.
However, when you try to clearly define where the boundaries are on what is or is not an ‘open source company,’ things get squishy pretty fast. Think about:
A company that created an open source project, then donated it to an organization like the CNCF.
A founder started an open source project at a previous place of employment. When he/she left, the open source project continued to be maintained and controlled by the previous employer, but the founder continues to be involved, contributes to the project and is building a company that is based on that project.
A company with an open source project that they’re lackluster about maintaining and is clearly being used to push people into the ‘enterprise’ option.
A company that builds a commercial product on top of an open source project they do not maintain, though they contribute to it.
If you put a gun to my head (please don’t actually do that!), I would say that all of those scenarios are open source companies. But I think there are also very good arguments against each scenario.
More important: Does it matter?
For individual founders, understanding exactly what your relationship with open source is, what goals you have for your open source project and how the project fits in with your larger business strategy is critical.
It does not matter, though, if you fit someone else’s definition of an open source startup. Sure, you might miss out on some ‘best of’ lists, but you’ll be fine.
Be deliberate about your open source strategy, understand how it fits into your business and how your open source project contributes to things that matter to your company. Being open source doesn’t automatically make your company virtuous, and being closed source doesn’t make you evil. There are many ways to integrate open source into a company’s culture and strategy.
Do you disagree? What do you think makes a company open source (or not)? Get in touch if you want to share!