We're both second time CTOs and we've been on both sides of this, as consumers of and creators of OSS. I was previously a co-founder and CTO of Porter [2], which had an open-core model. There are two risks that most companies think about in the open core model:
1. Big companies using your platform without contributing back in some way or buying a license. I think this is less of a risk, because these organizations are incentivized to buy a support license to help with maintenance, upgrades, and since we sit on a critical path, with uptime.
2. Hyperscalers folding your product in to their offering [3]. This is a bigger risk but is also a bit of a "champagne problem".
Note that smaller companies/individual developers are who we'd like to enable, not crowd out. If people would like to use our cloud offering because it reduces the headache for them, they should do so. If they just want to run our service and manage their own PostgreSQL, they should have the option to do that too.
Based on all of this, here's where we land on things:
1. Everything we've built so far has been 100% MIT licensed. We'd like to keep it that way and make money off of Hatchet Cloud. We'll likely roll out a separate enterprise support agreement for self hosting.
2. Our cloud version isn't going to run a different core engine or API server than our open source version. We'll write interfaces for all plugins to our servers and engines, so even if we have something super specific to how we've chosen to do things on the cloud version, we'll expose the options to write your own plugins on the engine and server.
3. We'd like to make self-hosting as easy to use as our cloud version. We don't want our self-hosted offering to be a second-class citizen.
Would love to hear everyone's thoughts on this.
Put in a DAU/MAU/volume/revenue clause that pertains specifically only to hyperscalers and resellers. Don't listen to the naysayers telling you not to do it. This isn't their company or their future. They don't care if you lose your business or that you put in all of that work just for a tech giant to absorb it for free and turn it against you.
Just do it. Do it now and you won't get (astroturfed?) flack for that decision later by people who don't even have skin in the game. It's not a big deal. I would buy open core products with these protections -- it's not me you're protecting yourselves against, and I'm nowhere in the blast radius. You're trying not to die in the miasma of monolithic cloud vendors.
There have to be at least 10 different ways between different cloud providers to run a distributed task queue. Amazon, Azure, GCP
Self-hosting RabbitMQ, etc.
I'm curious how they are able to convince investors that there is a sizable portion of market they think doesn't already have this solved (or already has it solved and is willing to migrate)
Comparing to rabbitmq it should be easier to see what is in the queue itself without mutating it, for instance.
Is there any task queue you are completely happy with?
I use Redis, but it’s only half of the solution.
I don’t think this is out of place
Is this going to follow the "open core" pattern or will there be a different path to revenue?