Selling an Open Source Plugin

[ncthom]

Hi all,

I've been working on a small plugin that's now just about ready for release. In an ideal world, I'd like to make a little bit of a profit from it, and I'd also like it to be open source. My motivation for the former there is probably obvious, and for the latter, I just want to contribute what I've learned going from never-tried-VST-programming to where I am now, back into the open for people who are curious to start programming audio plugins themselves. I think many of you probably understand that sentiment as well, given how much amazing information and software is shared on these forums.

Anyway these two wants seem to be at odds, and together they introduce some interesting challenges. For example, copy protection: is it even worth it? No matter what I do, someone could quite easily get around it if my code is in the open. Another example, pricing: it's hard to ask people for money when they could just grab my source code and build it themselves. Maybe all they'd be paying for is that I've done that for them.

I could go on, but these two questions seem to be the ones I can't find a good answer for. Have any of you done this before? Or have you seen examples of a successful project which has done this? What steps did you take? And if you haven't, how would you?

Thank you!

[xoxos]

let me give you some hard earned advice

discretise all of your humanist interests from your "capital ventures". it's nice that you're nice, but reality. if you try to intertwine selling a product with availing a resource, you may confuse potential cutsomers.


sell your product. if other people can build it, it has VFM for those who are not inclined to. some of our consumers are viciously incapable and will defend their right to consume insensately rather than cultivate the slightest ability.

you can even put the source right next to the product, there are still some sorts of people who will be inclined to purchase, and there are sorts who will never be inclined to.

run with the ball, if you release source and someone takes the idea and makes a product and is more successful at retailing it, then you had n amount of time before that to run it. and maybe n amount of time afterwards before people notice there is more thna one ball.

with this pov, i'd forego copy protection, unless such motion cultivates an image your clientele prefer.

[PurpleSunray]

I don't think you will make any money from selling an open source plugin.
Actually nobody can. All the open source companies don't make their moneh by selling the compiled code as a product, but they sell licenses and/or support.

So do it like i.e. JUCE. Provide the code for personal use only with a license that makes is difficult to use on any commerical project (like GPL). In addition to that, offer a second license that allows using your plugin on commercial projects, but this one does cost $$$.

Or do like the linux folks - write very complex code and use the most broken build system/script you can find. Nobody will be able to actually work with the code, unless he spends days on just getting the compile to work... or buys support from you.

[BertKoor]

Money is (or at least: was) made on free software / plugins.
Collect some nice freebees, press on CD-Rom and sell.
The "added value" is that the buyer doesn't need to download it.

Having said that, sure you can sell the installer of open source software. But if this is your first project, it better be good if you put a price tag on it. Imho makes more sense to first start build a reputation & flow with freeware.

[PurpleSunray]

Having said that, sure you can sell the installer of open source software. But if this is your first project, it better be good if you put a price tag on it. Imho makes more sense to first start build a reputation & flow with freeware.

So what does stop me to build his code too, but sell it for 5 cent less than he does?

Software bizz is not about selling installers... but licenses (you dont buy software unless u spend a lot of money... but you only buy the right to use it)

[Miles1981]

Well, I could sell some of my plugins, if the price is low enough.
Not everyone wants to :
- compile all the depedencies
- test that the code works
- or download the compiled version from a shitty website.

[Xenakios]

Or do like the linux folks - write very complex code and use the most broken build system/script you can find. Nobody will be able to actually work with the code, unless he spends days on just getting the compile to work... or buys support from you.

Hah, I was also going to write a reply in this vein...

[sjm]

Another open source model is to have a free (open source and no cost) project, and a "bells and whistles" version that is payware. Now of course, anyone could take the open source project and add their own bells and whistles. But if you are offering the bells and whistles that paying customers want, it's probably a lot less effort for them to buy your finished product than roll their own.

For this approach to work, you will need to understand your market, and identify which users fall into which category: would never pay anything vs would pay for extras. Then you need to identify what features you can offer to the second group that gives them added value, but that the first group can do without.

This is the model the company I work for uses for one of our products. The software designed for software developers, and the nerdy geeky boffin cooking up something mad in their bedroom or working for a start-up is more than happy with the free, open source version. Some of them even contribute code to the project, which is really great. Bigger corporations on the other hand appreciate the additional payware tools that make your life so much simpler if you have a big team and want stuff that only really becomes important above a certain size, like statistical reports and stuff. We couldn't sell these features to the first group, and we also wouldn't have the same traction and user base without the first group. Conversely, the corporate customers might never have heard about us without the open source users going into these companies and saying "we need to use this tool".

Obviously the user base using the free version is much bigger. But these users are reaping the benefits, and then tell others about the software. These are the people driving the vast majority of sales - word of mouth is our only form of marketing and almost all our leads are a result of someone in the community pointing them in our direction.

Whether this translates well to VSTs I can't say. And there is one obvious downside in that you will need to maintain two separate projects.

[stanlea]

You will not make a lot of money, wathever financial way you choose. One way is to make the announcement, provide screens, audio demos and ask some donations to speed up the release. Generally, it works if the plugin is appealing enough.

[resynthesis]

Some good advice already:

- Run parts of your code through an obfuscator
- Read Urs's ideas about protection and obfuscate as required
- Charge a few quid for compiled VSTs

[ncthom]

Cheers everyone, I appreciate the conversation.

I think there are some great, pragmatic ideas in here.

I think it's true that there is a definite market segment which has no interest in learning how to download & compile my source code, and that would likely be where I could make some money. I realize that, this being my first plugin, I have no information about my potential clientele, and really no credit to my name to warrant selling anything at a significant price. That said, my plugin is really pretty simple, so I have no qualms selling it at a very low price.

Sure, there's nothing stopping somebody from taking my code and selling it for $.05 less. But if we're talking about a really low price in the first place, I think there's probably little incentive for someone to do that. Not to mention whatever market segment I manage to pull would be pretty small. Suffice it to say I'm not worried about this possibility.

I also think releasing a plain open source version and then selling the bells & whistles separately is a great idea, but a lot of the ideas @sjm listed there seem they'd only work well if you had good information about your clientele up front. Seeing as I don't have that maybe I'll save the idea for a future plugin

I'm curious to hear more thoughts if you have them!

[ghettosynth]

Having said that, sure you can sell the installer of open source software. But if this is your first project, it better be good if you put a price tag on it. Imho makes more sense to first start build a reputation & flow with freeware.

So what does stop me to build his code too, but sell it for 5 cent less than he does?

Having a license to do so. If you're willing to violate that, well, that's no different than piracy really and it doesn't matter.

Release source with GPL3 license, sell plugin.

[xoxos]

the "entrepeneurial spirit" is (why thank you, critics of aciddose) predatory. it's a great experiment in epistemology, have total confidence that you can ask any price you want. *never* say "it won't do much" or "i don't deserve", these concepts do not exist for the successful businessperson. ethics is here to osculate the gonads.

the clientele are too addled and ignorant to know who you are and if you are worth $500 for a biquad eq. you know the type - listless suckers who, without your guidance, would be clogging the entrance to shoping malls in their dirty flourescent tanktops. you *can* offer them a product. they *need* you to milk them to help them realise the sorry state of their volition. every drop of your remorseless extrication is a precious gift to the core of their soul beyond lifetimes. rip away. your cruelty is a selfless manifestation of god becoming god, you will be rewarded by forms of wealth you have yet to understand. kill today, kill faster, and kill now! erm i mean sell plugins.

there's talking about it and there's doing it. there's making a spot of tea and there's holding someone's hand. one is not the other, and that's how things are done or not done.

fwiw i've been selling plugins since c. 2004 with an egalitarian approach. treating people as fallible individuals with finite life support. i've made several hundred a month in a few stretches, for most of these years it's been grocery money, one hand's count of sales a month, which i wouldn't be here without. since you haven't demonstrated the "self confidence" to engage in more profitable business, i'd anticipate your venture is a matter of fielding a product. there are a small core of users who take the time to inform themselves and have a (fwiw) "genuine" interest in innovation in this field that overrides consumer sensibility. they're good customers, ones you don't feel guilty about, and they're here waiting. the ones that you make profit off of, you have to lure.

[mystran]

Having a license to do so. If you're willing to violate that, well, that's no different than piracy really and it doesn't matter.

Release source with GPL3 license, sell plugin.

GPL is the wrong license if you want to prevent other people from selling it.

See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html for FSF point of view of the subject:

Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.

[ghettosynth]

Having a license to do so. If you're willing to violate that, well, that's no different than piracy really and it doesn't matter.

Release source with GPL3 license, sell plugin.

GPL is the wrong license if you want to prevent other people from selling it.

See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html for FSF point of view of the subject:

Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.

You're right, I'm confusing the creative commons limitations with the GPL3 limitations with respect to software used as a service.

In any case, the point holds, choose a license that keeps the source open but restricts the sale of builds of the code.