Comment by victormy
7 days ago
I respectfully disagree with the notion that open source is strictly a licensing model and not a business model. For an open-source project to achieve long-term reliability and growth, it must be backed by a sustainable commercial engine. History has shown that simply donating a project to a foundation (like Apache or CNCF) isn't a silver bullet; many projects under those umbrellas still struggle to find the resources they need to thrive. The ideal path—and the best outcome for users globally—is a "middle way" where: The software remains open and maintained. The core team has a viable way to survive and fund development. Open code ensures security, transparency, and a trustworthy software supply chain. However, the way MinIO has handled this transition is, in my view, the most disappointing approach possible. It creates a significant trust gap. When a company pivots this way, users are left wondering about the integrity of the code—whether it’s the potential for "backdoors" or undisclosed data transmission. I hope to see other open-source object storage projects mature quickly to provide a truly transparent and reliable alternative.
> For an open-source project to achieve long-term reliability and growth, it must be backed by a sustainable commercial engine
You mean like Linux, Python, PostgreSQL, Apache HTTP Server, Node.js, MariaDB, GNU Bash, GNU Coreutils, SQLite, VLC, LibreOffice, OpenSSH?
Actually, Linux reinforces my point. It isn't powered solely by volunteers; it thrives because the world's largest corporations (Intel, Google, Red Hat, etc.) foot the bill. The Linux Foundation is massively funded by corporate members, and most kernel contributors are paid engineers. Without that commercial engine, Linux would not have the dominance it does today. Even OpenAI had to pivot away from its original non-profit, open principles to survive and scale. There is nothing wrong with making money while sustaining open source. The problem is MinIO's specific approach. Instead of a symbiotic relationship, they treated the community as free QA testers and marketing pawns, only to pull up the ladder later. That’s a "bait-and-switch," not a sustainable business model.
> Actually, Linux reinforces my point.
Not many open source projects are Linux-sized. Linux is worth billions of dollars and enabled Google and Redhat to exist, so they can give back millions, without compulsion, and in a self-interested way.
Random library maintainer dude should not expect their (very replaceable) library to print money. The cool open source tool/utility could be a 10-person company, maybe 100 tops, but people see dollar-signs in their eyes based on number of installs/GitHub stars, and get VC funding to take a swing for billions in ARR.
I remember when (small scale) open source was about scratching your own itch without making it a startup via user-coercion. It feels like the 'Open source as a growth-hack" has metastasized into "Now that they are hooked, entire user base is morally obligated to give me money". I would have no issue if a project included this before it gets popular - but that may prevent popular adoption. So it rubs me the wrong way when folk want to have their cake and eat it.
> Even OpenAI had to pivot away from its original non-profit, open principles to survive and scale.
Uh, no, OpenAI didn't pivot from being open in order to survive.
They survived for 7 years before ChatGPT was released. When it was, they pivoted the _instant_ it became obvious that AI was about to be a trillion-dollar industry and they weren't going to miss the boat of commercialization. Yachts don't buy themselves, you know!
1 reply →