Congrats on all your accomplishments Mitchell and looking forward to what you'll create next.

They already do I think. See https://salsa.debian.org/public and https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2023/09/19/debian-customizes-c...

For the source code yeah, but not for the issue tracker. Debian's issue tracker is very archaic and annoying to use when needed.

I'm glad it's not just me. I've given up on bug reporting to Debian on at least ~two occasions because the email sent via reportbug simply wouldn't go through without any indication as to why. Fortunately somebody else was more successful and all got fixed.

I never understood why it has to be so clunky. Some people might like this old style e-mail workflow, but I find it irritating.

Very cool idea. It is similar to an auto gyro copter, causing the rotor to pull the tower instead of a traditional wind turbine where it is pushing it sideways. This is way more efficient. If winds get high the rotor pulls the construction upright, causing the plane of the rotor to be horizontal, which reduces its wind capture area and speed.

Totally, it uses the materials in a much more efficient way, we can get way more turbines per unit of steel, etc.

I think GoDot will become very popular as an alternative and started a company around it. Ramatak released the first pre-release of their mobile studio for GoDot two weeks ago https://twitter.com/RamatakInc/status/1696914278861656397

"GoDot"? Isn't it named after Beckett's play, Waiting for Godot?

Oh, certainly. (The uppercase D is a typo, only the G is uppercase.)

From Wikipedia:

> “…it represents the never-ending wish of adding new features in the engine, which would get it closer to an exhaustive product, but never will.”

Thanks, merged.

Exactly, I made a diagram for this, it is the first graphic on https://opencoreventures.com/blog/2022-10-preventing-the-bai...

Yep, more about OCV on https://opencoreventures.com/ TLDR; we start new open core companies around existing open source projects.

Have you had much success with companies post-VC?

eg after they're acquired, IPO'd, or dissolve?

Asking because things seem to still be at an early stage with yourselves (thus far), so not remembering anything that's reached the end of the VC pipeline yet.

It is indeed early stage. The oldest company is Fleet https://fleetdm.com/ who do open source device management and raised at $100m post in 2022 https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/28/fleet-nabs-20m-to-enable-e...

"Inevitable end for every open source company since the free money ended." I think the only way to prevent this is changing the company charter https://opencoreventures.com/blog/2022-10-preventing-the-bai...

"Then after 2 years Terraform Cloud catches up" Really good point, company scopes change.

So if a company is losing money they should just fail with no chance to change direction?

Hashicorp has a billion dollars in the bank and is growing 48% YoY, so they aren’t in danger of failing. They may be in danger of not justifying their $5 billion valuation.

I assume you mean my VC fund, Open Core Ventures https://opencoreventures.com/ that starts new companies around existing open source projects.

We believe that open core companies need to give back and the open source code base should be better off because the open core company exists. Features that appeal most to individual contributors should be open source https://opencoreventures.com/blog/2023-01-open-core-standard...

The article mentions the recent move of RedHat to no longer share their source code. I think RedHat is a special case because they didn't have any proprietary code https://opencoreventures.com/blog/2023-04-red-hat-model-only...

Open core can be done right and wrong (not giving back, etc.), for some more thoughts on how to do it right please see https://opencoreventures.com/blog/2023-07-open-core-is-misun... We're figuring all of this our as we do it, suggestions are welcome.

Thanks for replying. I hope you and others can find a way to make open source more sustainable without compromising the projects. Like I alluded to with my prisoners dilemma comment above, I think there is an optimum for everyone where companies try and make the open source project itself as valuable as possible instead of extracting value from it, and I'm happy hear about businesses that are legitimately trying to get us there.

Thanks for your response, I appreciate it. One thing that is a big risk to the optimum is open core companies relicensing the open source code after the project becomes popular, to prevent this some of our companies are set up as public benefit companies https://opencoreventures.com/blog/2022-11-introducing-authen...

I lean towards a public benefit company for libreqos.io. I do wish more of the folk's business models we were actually helping (videoconferencing, gaming) would recognize their common interests with us, and chip in.

Great point in the article. In https://opencoreventures.com/blog/2023-06-27-ai-weights-are-... I propose a framework to solve the confusion. From the post: "AI licensing is extremely complex. Unlike software licensing, AI isn’t as simple as applying current proprietary/open source software licenses. AI has multiple components—the source code, weights, data, etc.—that are licensed differently. AI also poses socio-ethical consequences that don’t exist on the same scale as computer software, necessitating more restrictions like behavioral use restrictions, in some cases, and distribution restrictions. Because of these complexities, AI licensing has many layers, including multiple components and additional licensing considerations."