Good open-source software is free because you are not paying for the code - but the implementation itself: configuration, integrations, adapting it to your business and maintaining it, is real work that takes time and experience, paid for separately. Below: that distinction, without a TCO (total cost of ownership) comparison slide.
When I tell a client that the system I am proposing is free, and then send a quote for the implementation, the first reaction is predictable. Something along the lines of: "okay, but if it is free, what exactly am I paying for".
That is a good question. And it deserves an honest answer, not a TCO comparison slide.
Where this model came from
Open source as a business phenomenon has its roots in the academic and hacker culture of the 1970s and 80s - a belief that knowledge and tools should be shared rather than owned by corporations. Richard Stallman, GNU, then Linux. It was an ideological movement before it became a business model.
The turning point came when companies realized you can make money on software without selling licenses. Red Hat built a multi-billion dollar business on free Linux. Automattic makes money on WordPress which is open source. Elastic, HashiCorp, MongoDB - a long list of companies that give the code away for free and make money on everything around it.
The mechanism is simple: a free product attracts users and builds a network. The network creates demand for services. Services generate revenue.
What you are buying when you pay for implementation
Imagine you receive a professional restaurant kitchen for free. Ovens, refrigeration, equipment, everything. You just need to install it, connect it to the electrical and plumbing systems, configure it for your workflow, train the cooks and make sure it meets health codes.
Is the kitchen free? Yes, in the sense that you did not pay for the equipment. Is opening the restaurant free? Absolutely not.
Software works the same way. A license is the cost of access to code. Implementation is the cost of turning that code into a working system fitted to the specific processes of a specific business. These two things have always existed as separate costs - the licensing model simply bundled them together and added a margin for every subsequent year.
With the open source model you separate these costs. The license drops to zero. The implementation remains - because it has to remain, because without it you do not have a system, you have code on GitHub.
Why this is fair for the buyer
The traditional licensing model has one property that is rarely mentioned in sales materials: you pay regardless of value.
You bought an Akeneo Growth license for 25,000 EUR per year. The system works poorly because it was poorly implemented. You keep paying 25,000 EUR per year. Half the team is not using the system. You keep paying. Your business requirements changed and the system no longer fits. You keep paying, until the contract ends.
With the open source plus paid implementation model, risk is distributed differently. You pay for getting the system running - if the system does not work, the conversation with the implementer is straightforward and concrete. Then you pay for maintenance and development proportionally to what you actually do. There is no mandatory subscription for the mere existence of the software.
This does not mean it is always cheaper for everyone. At small scale with simple requirements, a SaaS subscription can be more rational - zero implementation cost, zero DevOps, predictable monthly cost. The open source model starts winning at a certain complexity and scale, where flexibility and the absence of a mandatory subscription have real financial value.
What this means for the Webkul ecosystem
I work in the ecosystem Webkul built around this model: UnoPIM, Bagisto, AureusERP, KrayinCRM, UVDesk. Every one of these systems is on GitHub, every one of them you can download and run without paying anyone anything.
Webkul makes money on implementations, support and extension development. Partners like Web Berserker make money on implementations for local markets. The more companies use these systems, the larger the partner ecosystem, the more ready connectors and plugins, the better the product for everyone.
This is a mechanism that works differently from closed software. With closed software the vendor has an interest in keeping you dependent - migrating to a competitor is expensive, so you stay. With open source the vendor has an interest in keeping you satisfied and having you recommend the system - because their revenue depends on growing adoption, not on lock-in.
One thing that does not change
Free code does not mean free work. Someone has to design the data structure, configure the system, integrate it with the ERP, test it, deploy it to production and teach the team how to use it.
That is the value you are paying for. Not for the right to use someone else's code.
And in that sense the model is fair in a way the traditional licensing model never was: you know exactly what you are paying for, because it is concrete work, not abstract access to bits and bytes on someone else's server.
