This is a really interesting method of funding a software project. It doesn't seem sustainable though. People might (maybe) be willing to fund a "Light Table 2.0" project but certainly nobody would care to fund an "ongoing maintenance and bugfixes for Light Table 1.0" project.
Perhaps the Kickstarter model could be adapted to fund maintenance and bugfixes too. Popular open source projects always have the problem that their bug trackers get spammed with passionate complaints from well-meaning but frustrated users. I'm imagining a public bug tracker where users can pay to raise the priority of their favorite bugs. Not necessarily a "bug bounty" system, but just a way of raising money for the project overall while simultaneously giving frustrated users a productive outlet and reducing spam.
I may have missed something, but I believe the point is to get it developed with the help of Kickstarter-money in the first place and then sell through the normal channels to fund future development. As incentive for backers, they most likely get away with a cheaper price than the one we'll see later when the first version is out for sale.
It's not entirely clear how it can require a license and be open source at the same time. I suppose we'll see how open it really is when it's released. But selling licenses doesn't preclude also having a way to pay for bug fixing priority.
I know someone who wrote GPL software and sold alternate non-GPL licenses - apparently (at the time, at least) some organizations had very paranoid lawyers who won't allow any GPL software to be used. He called it the "Sap" license. Those particular companies tended to have deep pockets, so this worked out.
some organizations had very paranoid lawyers who won't allow any GPL software to be used.
I was working for such an organization a few years ago. On top of that, one of the founders would even post "anti-communist" rants against Open Source on the company intranet.
Being open-source and selling doesn't have to exclude each other. You just have to trust the buyers moral, as in, if they're using it to create things they get paid for, they also pay for a license of your application.
Also, since when has having a closed source ever prevented piracy anyway?
That's a really big if. If it's truly open source then there will also be multiple contributors. Who do you pay? People always say this "open source doesn't mean you're not allowed to sell it!" and that's technically correct, but I don't think this strategy has ever been demonstrated to be economically feasible.
Then again Red Hat's value add is the support. Red Hat's business model is not to rely on its customers' altruism. There are various reasons to dislike such a model, especially for an IDE, not the least of which is that the point of a well-designed IDE like LightTable is that it's easy to use and does not require a support contract. Being a support company creates the conflicting incentive that the software should not be too easy to use. Furthermore, support is not fun; you need to be a big company to earn a significant amount of money, because revenue is directly tied to man hours. Making new and exciting IDEs is fun, and revenue can be more directly tied to the value you produce, rather than the hours you put in.
There are various reasons to dislike such a model, especially for an IDE, not the least of which is that the point of a well-designed IDE like LightTable is that it's easy to use and does not require a support contract.
Lots of BigCo are paranoid about the support contract thing. Sometimes partners and investors want to see support contracts in place as a security blanket. In those cases, the support contract for a "well designed" IDE in your scenario is just free money.
JetBrains seems to do alright selling IDEs. In their case, I think people pay for the value, and they continue to pay for upgrades. Support is through the web, so it fits in with revenue commensurate with value.
Yes, indeed. JetBrains uses a closed source model and that works really well (they have a "lite" open source version, but the version they earn money from is closed source). I'm not saying that you shouldn't do support at all, just that it shouldn't be your primary business model.
As I understand it: the source will be freely available for you to download, modify and compile. But if you want some nice convenient binaries then there'll be a small charge.
Perhaps the Kickstarter model could be adapted to fund maintenance and bugfixes too. Popular open source projects always have the problem that their bug trackers get spammed with passionate complaints from well-meaning but frustrated users. I'm imagining a public bug tracker where users can pay to raise the priority of their favorite bugs. Not necessarily a "bug bounty" system, but just a way of raising money for the project overall while simultaneously giving frustrated users a productive outlet and reducing spam.