That isn’t the same. Asking money early on is often a clear validation of monetizable ideas, which isn’t the case with open source projects; even if you gain traction, you never know whether the users will pay for it.
That is true, but the statement by pg was that there hasn’t been a single case where a startup open sourced too much. I’m saying that at best it’s uncertain, and more realistically not true.
You can open source too much, especially when you don’t know yet which aspects of your business add the most value (and thus you should charge for). You can ask money when you open source stuff (e.g. support, cloud service, etc), but how do you know when you shouldn’t have just licensed your actual product?
I understand what you are saying, but open source code cannot be a product, so it doesn't matter whether you open source everything or not. You will also feel over protective about it, not actually open sourcing everything under the most permissive license. No matter how I think about it, I can't imagine how a startup can over open source things.
That's not true. You can sell a software product and provide the source code as part of the product and/or sell the source code at a premium price to those that need/want it in order to make modifications/customizations or just to have for security/auditing purposes. However, the general stipulation is that you cannot just share that source code with everyone else, only to other customers that have also purchased, or have access to, the source code.
If you can write a prototype software in just a few person years that is enough to launch a major business, yet you can't generate more value by being the expert hosts/consultants on it, you are a rare breed.
Who writes a small piece of software that changes the world yet do anything else to build commercial value on top of it?
