ASK HN: How Did Mint.com Use Open Source Technology To Build a $170MM Company?
21 comments
I'm surprised at how poorly some of the posts here describe the GPL.
GPL - If you give me software, I can request the source. I can edit the source to my hearts content and never show anyone. If I distribute the software to someone else they have the right to request my changes.
BSD - If you give me the software I have no right to the source. You can give it to me or not.
AGPL - If you run a service which someone else connects to (such as a web server) that end user has the right to request the source along with your changes even though you have not actually distributed the modified software to that end user.
GPL - If you give me software, I can request the source. I can edit the source to my hearts content and never show anyone. If I distribute the software to someone else they have the right to request my changes.
BSD - If you give me the software I have no right to the source. You can give it to me or not.
AGPL - If you run a service which someone else connects to (such as a web server) that end user has the right to request the source along with your changes even though you have not actually distributed the modified software to that end user.
That is a very helpful description. Thank you.
I work at Mint. We do use a lot of open source, but as others in this thread have pointed out, we only need to open source our code if we distributed modified GPL-like code (which we don't).
The Wesabe code is completely unrelated. We heavily use MySQL, Hibernate, Spring, XMLC and YUI.
We have contributed code back to the community in some cases, such as YUI.
If you want your JavaScript to be more Minty, I suggest you take a look at Matt Snider's excellent blog (http://www.mattsnider.com). He has code samples that are very similar or identical to what is actually in the Mint codebase. He explains the rationale behind a lot of the design decisions and to my knowledge, it's free for anyone to use.
The Wesabe code is completely unrelated. We heavily use MySQL, Hibernate, Spring, XMLC and YUI.
We have contributed code back to the community in some cases, such as YUI.
If you want your JavaScript to be more Minty, I suggest you take a look at Matt Snider's excellent blog (http://www.mattsnider.com). He has code samples that are very similar or identical to what is actually in the Mint codebase. He explains the rationale behind a lot of the design decisions and to my knowledge, it's free for anyone to use.
So, everything at Mint.com isn't open source, as many non-technical reports make it sound like. It's just some of the technologies...and much (or most?) of the code itself was written by Mint.com employees prior to the sale?
Why would think Mint.com used code from Wesabe? It was release only in June this year, towards the time Wesabe left for the deadpool.
Yes, Wesabe and Mint are two completely different companies. They both used Yodlee, which is most definitely not open-source. Mint no longer uses Yodlee, and Wesabe is dead.
Even if Yodlee was open-source, they're probably using it as a framework without any modification anyway, so would not require release.
Even if Yodlee was open-source, they're probably using it as a framework without any modification anyway, so would not require release.
if you're selling code and actually shipping that code to the client AND it has open-source material (with a license requiring it, a la GPL) then you have to open source all of your material as well.
if you're running it privately theres no need in most cases.
if you're running it privately theres no need in most cases.
Thus the reason the AGPL was created, although hardly anyone uses it (to my knowledge).
"if you use open source technology, don't you have to contribute everything you develop -- related to the open source code -- back to the community?"
No. Just open-source the non-business-specific part.
Most of the world's largest companies depend on open-source projects. Many of these companies contribute back to the projects or start new projects of their own. It bothers me to no end when I see representatives of these same companies claiming that open-source is some kind of disease. I understand the ramifications of using some licenses (GPL, AGPL) in the wrong way, but thinking open-source is bad or dangerous is going to leave you out of the big leagues in this day and age, for many markets, at least.
Sure, you need a business model, and you need to make money, and you're almost surely not going to make money by just developing an open-source product.
But, companies these days win on the service they provide and the continued development they put into their product, as long as the continued enhancements to the product are of significant value to the customer (subscription model or timed-support/upgrade-license model).
I talked recently to someone in a new startup recently that had a really bad attitude. She didn't understand why all of the companies were developing solutions for a large enterprise product were embracing open-source, and she thought that her startup was going to put the rest of the solution providers to shame because she would reap the benefits of keeping all of the code developed by her company to themselves. I understand not wanting to give away the bank, but that type of attitude especially in the market that she was trying to enter will not work. I'd hope that her way of thinking was the exception rather than the norm, but I'm sure it is prevalent within many larger companies, where they are far enough away from the developers and IT workers that they just have no freakin' clue what goes on there.
No. Just open-source the non-business-specific part.
Most of the world's largest companies depend on open-source projects. Many of these companies contribute back to the projects or start new projects of their own. It bothers me to no end when I see representatives of these same companies claiming that open-source is some kind of disease. I understand the ramifications of using some licenses (GPL, AGPL) in the wrong way, but thinking open-source is bad or dangerous is going to leave you out of the big leagues in this day and age, for many markets, at least.
Sure, you need a business model, and you need to make money, and you're almost surely not going to make money by just developing an open-source product.
But, companies these days win on the service they provide and the continued development they put into their product, as long as the continued enhancements to the product are of significant value to the customer (subscription model or timed-support/upgrade-license model).
I talked recently to someone in a new startup recently that had a really bad attitude. She didn't understand why all of the companies were developing solutions for a large enterprise product were embracing open-source, and she thought that her startup was going to put the rest of the solution providers to shame because she would reap the benefits of keeping all of the code developed by her company to themselves. I understand not wanting to give away the bank, but that type of attitude especially in the market that she was trying to enter will not work. I'd hope that her way of thinking was the exception rather than the norm, but I'm sure it is prevalent within many larger companies, where they are far enough away from the developers and IT workers that they just have no freakin' clue what goes on there.
How? Just like every other 170+ Million dollar company out there. Show me one that IS NOT using Open Source somewhere in their organization and I'll eat something disgusting.
Considering that even Microsoft has been embracing PHP, WordPress, and other OSS projects lately, I can't imagine you'll find a major technology company not using open source somewhere. Actually, I doubt you can find a major company in any industry that isn't...
Do I get to decide what disgusting thing you eat? :)
How did you connect the Wesabe github to Mint?
I heard a rumor that Mint.com used open source. Then I tried doing some Google searches to find the details (which I couldn't) and found the Github site listed in a related article (now I think un-related), but no other details...so I posted the question on HN to see if anyone heard the real story and could share it.
Really depends on the license. If its something like the Apache 2 license, then you can do want with code. If its something like the GPL then you need to give back any changes AND your code that uses the GPL code (more or less).
See http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
See http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
Giving back changes is only required when distributing copies of the software. For most hosted services that never happens; contribution isn't required.
Apparently the wording in GPL2 is a bit vague about hosted services and it can be argued that a hosted service is distribution based on the language used in the license.
GPL3 attempts to make it a bit clearer. AGPL as well.
GPL3 attempts to make it a bit clearer. AGPL as well.
AGPL is the license that closes the service provider loophole. Normal GPL only applies if you are delivering binaries---providing a service is considered "in-house" use.
Then I found a bunch of code that Mint.com used for their technology: http://github.com/wesabe
My question is this: if you use open source technology, don't you have to contribute everything you develop -- related to the open source code -- back to the community? If so, is it just the main code base (not finalized, production code) without the "look and feel" of the system you've developed?