Feng Office is a commercial software product with a subset of features available under the GPL. It is not open source, and we tend to use the term <a href="http://www.fauxpensource.org">fauxpensource</a> to describe such software.
First off, I run an open source project called OpenNMS. We've been around for over 10 years and we have been profitable every year. We have never had to resort to a commercial software "tiered" model. Now, granted, we don't have the millions of users that you can claim, but we have tens of thousands that seem statisfied with our model.
Second, let me address your points:
"1. Many clients required more features than we had developed."
Why don't you have those clients pay for the development and then release them as part of the open source product? We do.
"2. It was easier to sell additional features than it was to sell support services."
Ah, so it was easier to sell commercial software than open source software? I get that, but you do agree that your main business model is the selling of commercial software licenses, right? Assuming your motiviation is the same as most businesses, i.e. maximizing profit, then you will make decisions to require the most people to buy your software. Thus the "community edition" will always be a second class citizen, hence "ghetto". It exists mainly as a loss leader to get people interested in your commercial software, and is mere shareware instead of truly open source. Your failure was not one in open source but in your ability to run an open source company.
"3. Our initial business model was not going to sustain the level of investment required to build this type of software."
Well, again, you point to a failure in your business model. Perhaps you couldn't build a big enough community to build your product because you keep this wall up between versions. Perhaps there are other reasons why open source failed for you. In any case, when you created a commercial version you stopped being an open source company. OpenNMS is proof that the open source model can work, even if your efforts did not.
You also write:
"Also, clients purchasing a license for the Professional Edition also get the source code."
Have you actually read any of this site? The term "open source" is much more than access to the source code. It requires the ability to freely modify and distribute it. I am assuming that your commercial software license prohibits me from sharing my copy, which is a key part of the open source magic.
One thing that may have contributed to your failure with a true open source model is this attitude that you somehow "gifted" the world with your software and they owed you something for that. It's kind of like when you suggest I need to be more "respectful". I usually find that those who demand respect are the least deserving of it.
For decades I've been dealing with companies like yours trying to co-opt the term "open source" for there own commercial interests. Perhaps it is you that owes us a little more respect.
I'm surprised this appeared on opensource.com, since this is much more of an fauxpensource/open core application - a model which has been shown to fail. Basically, "when we were open source we couldn't generate lots of revenue, but we like using the term as a loss leader to get people to buy our proprietary software".
<a href="http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_prentice/2010/03/31/open-core-the-emperors-new-clothes/">Gartner</a> pointed out the problems with this business model years ago. If you use Feng, but want Project Management? Pay, and give up your open source rights. Want to manage clients? Pay, and give up your open source rights.
If Feng has built a business model on paywalling certain features, they have basically told their community "you can never have these as open source".
Don't check out their ghetto, community edition unless you plan to fork it. It only encourages them.
Authored Comments
Conrado:
Feng Office is a commercial software product with a subset of features available under the GPL. It is not open source, and we tend to use the term <a href="http://www.fauxpensource.org">fauxpensource</a> to describe such software.
First off, I run an open source project called OpenNMS. We've been around for over 10 years and we have been profitable every year. We have never had to resort to a commercial software "tiered" model. Now, granted, we don't have the millions of users that you can claim, but we have tens of thousands that seem statisfied with our model.
Second, let me address your points:
"1. Many clients required more features than we had developed."
Why don't you have those clients pay for the development and then release them as part of the open source product? We do.
"2. It was easier to sell additional features than it was to sell support services."
Ah, so it was easier to sell commercial software than open source software? I get that, but you do agree that your main business model is the selling of commercial software licenses, right? Assuming your motiviation is the same as most businesses, i.e. maximizing profit, then you will make decisions to require the most people to buy your software. Thus the "community edition" will always be a second class citizen, hence "ghetto". It exists mainly as a loss leader to get people interested in your commercial software, and is mere shareware instead of truly open source. Your failure was not one in open source but in your ability to run an open source company.
"3. Our initial business model was not going to sustain the level of investment required to build this type of software."
Well, again, you point to a failure in your business model. Perhaps you couldn't build a big enough community to build your product because you keep this wall up between versions. Perhaps there are other reasons why open source failed for you. In any case, when you created a commercial version you stopped being an open source company. OpenNMS is proof that the open source model can work, even if your efforts did not.
You also write:
"Also, clients purchasing a license for the Professional Edition also get the source code."
Have you actually read any of this site? The term "open source" is much more than access to the source code. It requires the ability to freely modify and distribute it. I am assuming that your commercial software license prohibits me from sharing my copy, which is a key part of the open source magic.
One thing that may have contributed to your failure with a true open source model is this attitude that you somehow "gifted" the world with your software and they owed you something for that. It's kind of like when you suggest I need to be more "respectful". I usually find that those who demand respect are the least deserving of it.
For decades I've been dealing with companies like yours trying to co-opt the term "open source" for there own commercial interests. Perhaps it is you that owes us a little more respect.
I'm surprised this appeared on opensource.com, since this is much more of an fauxpensource/open core application - a model which has been shown to fail. Basically, "when we were open source we couldn't generate lots of revenue, but we like using the term as a loss leader to get people to buy our proprietary software".
<a href="http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_prentice/2010/03/31/open-core-the-emperors-new-clothes/">Gartner</a> pointed out the problems with this business model years ago. If you use Feng, but want Project Management? Pay, and give up your open source rights. Want to manage clients? Pay, and give up your open source rights.
If Feng has built a business model on paywalling certain features, they have basically told their community "you can never have these as open source".
Don't check out their ghetto, community edition unless you plan to fork it. It only encourages them.