Open source model is fundamentally different life cycle from traditional one
Understanding Open Source Software Licensing
If I look at open source, it’s really a different ballgame. Okay, the first thing you start is probably either probably parity with open source, or some kind of low cost alternative, or it may be something like Kubernetes, something completely new in industry, right? It didn’t even exist, right. And then the project will shoot for market growth, because they want people to use their software. You know, the setup a fancy website, they’ll speak at conferences, trying to basically get people interested in what they’re doing. But there’s no real, like final stage, they go in stage three, they either continue to innovate or decline, really two choices, but they don’t have a profit to maximize because they don’t have a profit, there is no cost reduction, because there’s no cost, right? I mean, this is traditionally where Postgres is where Linux is all these sort of open source projects, who don’t really have a profit, margin or profit motive. So there’s nothing to cut, there’s no cost. You either attract more people or you don’t attract more people, you either get new features from new people, you don’t get new features. But there’s no sort of end. Because it’s stage four, the software is always available to continue. Right? Because in the previous option, when it became end of life, only the people who control the software could release it. And as soon as they couldn’t make more money, they stopped releasing it. But it is open source, the code, all of it always available. So even if somebody stopped working on it, somebody else can come along and continue working on it.
Now, you might think that’s a very unusual thing to happen. It doesn’t happen very often. What certainly happened for Postgres, because, as I said, when you know, in the 1996, when I started, it was kind of abandoned. You know, there was one person, Joe Lee Shin working on it. He was putting out releases every couple months, but there wasn’t the kind of vibrant community that would have allowed it to continue. But because it was open source, because it was DSD licensed. We could continue working on it and develop a team around it. Some of the people who were on that team in ‘96 are here at this conference. We Oleg and Yan I think we’re both heavily involved in at that point. I hope I’m not missing anybody else. But it’s the concept of having that software always available actually means something.