16

I have a free open-source project with around 800K downloads to date. I've been contacted by some monetization companies from time to time and turned them down, since I didn't want toolbar malware associated with my software. I was wondering however, is there a non-evil way to monetize software ?

Here are the options as I know them:

  • Add a donation button.
    • I don't feel comfortable with that as I really don't need "donations" - I'm paid quite well.
    • Donating users may feel entitled to support etc. (see the second to last bullet)
  • Add ads inside your application.
    In the web that may be acceptable, but in a desktop program it looks incredibly lame.
  • Charge a small amount for each download.
    • This model works well in the mobile world, but I suspect no one will go for it on the desktop.
    • It doesn't mix well with open source, though I suppose I could charge only for the binaries (most users won't go to the hassle of compiling the sources).
    • People may expect support etc. after having explicitly paid (see next bullet).
  • Make money off a service / community / support associated with the program.
    • This is one route I definitely don't want to take, I don't want any sort of hassle beyond coding. I assure you, the program is top notch (albeit simple) and I'm not aware of any bugs as of yet (there are support forums and blog comments where users may report them). It is also very simple, documented, and discoverable so I do think I have a case for supplying it "as is".
  • Add affiliate suggestions to your installer.
    • If you use a monetization company, you lose control over what they propose. Unless you can establish some sort of strong trust with the company to supply quality suggestions (I sincerely doubt it), I can't have that.
    • Choosing your own affiliate (e.g. directly suggesting Google Toolbar) is possibly the only viable solution to my mind. Problem is, where do I find a solid affiliate that could actually give value to the user rather than infect his computer with crapware? I thought maybe Babylon (not the toolbar of course, I hate toolbars)?
    • t0x1n
    • 945
    • 6
    • 7
    • 4
      As a user I'd be fine with any of these, as long as you don't install toolbars or change my home page without me explicitly checking an **unchecked** checkbox. – Rotem Jun 06 '14 at 09:17
    • Donations seems like the most honest method, or if you're willing to put in the time, support contracts. If you make it explicit that all donations will go towards development and you don't need them to keep you fed/housed/happy, I don't think anyone could blame you. – Phoshi Jun 06 '14 at 09:23
    • @Rotem Of course, if I go the affiliate route it'd be *opt-in* like you said but I'm not sure if that's good enough. Non-tech savvy users may think it's necessary to check the box in order for the installation to continue. – t0x1n Jun 06 '14 at 09:42
    • @Phoshi an interesting point. I could say something like "donations would motivate me to keep improving the program". – t0x1n Jun 06 '14 at 09:43
    • 3
      This question appears to be off-topic because it is **[about]** monetization and evil – gnat Jun 06 '14 at 09:59
    • 3
      It is difficult to find a single answer to this question, as it is formulated now. If you wish to have more alternatives, then you should ask in a forum, not a Q&A site. If you wish to select one of the alternatives you list, then you should clarify which criteria do you find important. Keep in mind you should be able to accept one answer that "solves your problem". – logc Jun 06 '14 at 10:08
    • I don't think there's a problem with you asking for donations. It's not begging as you seem to imply. If I enjoy a piece of free software and click on the donate button I'm not under the impression that the author needs to be impoverished. However, fairly or unfairly, typically donations work when supporting new development rather than just regard past efforts. – Nathan Cooper Jun 06 '14 at 11:15
    • 3
      You can monetize your software non-evil by not selling your soul to the devil. But seriously, a term like "evil" doesn't have a place in a question like this. There are real (non-evil) people feeding real (non-evil) families making this (non-evil) toolbars. – Pieter B Jun 06 '14 at 12:41
    • 6
      @PieterB there are also assasins and robbers that feed their families, that's not an argument. Where the money ends up has nothing to do with how it is gained. And a program that either tricks people into installing it by hiding in an installer on an opt-out basis or cannot be easily uninstalled is evil. Toolbars usually do both (even "respectable" ones like Ask.com). – t0x1n Jun 06 '14 at 13:41
    • Doesn't this really depend on your users? Open source zealots think the lack of code is evil. Net paranoia will hate malware, most users are accustomed to just ignoring ads much like we go and do something else during the TV commercials. Be open and honest. Don't try little tricks like if you make a donation, I'll hide the ads so I can get money out of you one way or the other. – JeffO Jun 06 '14 at 14:49
    • "non-evil"? that assumes that making money is somehow evil. It isn't. Thinking it is is delusional. – jwenting Jun 07 '14 at 05:54
    • @jwenting Making money is not evil. Tricking users into installing malware is. – t0x1n Jun 07 '14 at 09:17
    • @t0x1n yes, and so is tricking people into believing something's free and then bombard them with microtransactions for every buttonclick. What happened to just selling the stuff? – jwenting Jun 07 '14 at 14:08
    • I guess it's a brave new world :) – t0x1n Jun 07 '14 at 17:51
    • What about the option of leaving it free and using it as an example of your work when trying to get employment and/or money for other projects? – Rachel Jun 10 '14 at 13:45
    • @Rachel why are those two options mutually exclusive ? – t0x1n Jun 10 '14 at 20:45

    3 Answers3

    10

    As you don't seem to like any of the options you've listed, there are a couple of other options:

    • You could offer to customise the software for users for a fee.

    For example, they might want a change which you don't want to have in your main branch, but possibly could do for them for a fee. As you don't want to do paid support, you could give them the source for this, although you probably would not make it publically available if it didn't fit in with your main goals for the project.

    • You could also allow people to pay to prioritise a change.

    You might have your own plan for doing work, publish a roadmap, and then allow people to contact you with a payment to prioritise things which you aren't currently going to do in the near future.

    mc110
    • 408
    • 4
    • 8
    • 1
      Good idea, but it seems to involve *commitment*. I'd rather make less money without it. – t0x1n Jun 10 '14 at 20:44
    7

    You could always follow sublime text and do what I call the npr model of funding. Basically every couple of saves remind people that they could buy a license if they feel the software is worth it and remind them that this software requires some of your time to make.

    This has the advantage of still leaving your software free for use and you can set up a reasonable license fee that those who feel they use your stuff enough can pay.

    ford prefect
    • 489
    • 7
    • 12
    • Man, I hate those :) A good idea, but I probably won't go for it. I don't want to hassle users that are not interested, only supply the means for users that are (either directly by donating or indirectly by ads / affiliates). – t0x1n Jun 07 '14 at 09:03
    1

    Donationware for charity

    If users feel that your software provided them real value, they'll donate some amount. It is hard to know how much value your (free) software may bring to someone until they have the mechanism to show you. I've seen web forum and podcast fans donate hundreds of dollars because the information/community helped them where other methods/sources failed. Use disclaimers or clear messaging that donations != support or upgrades.

    If you choose to give the donations to charity, no evil is done. In fact, quite the opposite IMO. You could post up the feedback from the beneficiaries as part of updating your site, which may drive adoption. Win-win.

    Of course, if your code is open source, other people could go ahead and do this - does your licence prohibit them? Paint.net had this kind of issue sometime ago.

    JBRWilkinson
    • 6,759
    • 29
    • 36
    • That's a great point about the license, and the Paint.NET article was very interesting: http://blog.getpaint.net/2009/11/06/a-new-license-for-paintnet-v35/ – t0x1n Jun 07 '14 at 09:16