Business model

What we call business models in this context are transitionary models, hybrid models that can interface with the traditional economy. In times of transition, these hybrid models assure the subsistence of OVNs, i.e. help generate fiat currency that is used to acquire goods and services that are available on the market, purchase equipment, rent a physical space or deploy digital infrastructure, among other things. Thus some ventures operate in pure p2p mode, others operate in hybrid modes. For a more general overview of the p2p economy see: economic model and peer production.

Example of business models

Software specific

• Marketplace / Plugin ecosystems (ex. WordPress ecosystem, Drupal),
• Open Core / Dual Licensing (ex. GitLab, MySQL AB, Qt Company),
• SaaS / Hosting (ex. Automattic, MongoDB Inc.),

Hardware-specific

• Hardware-Centric Models (ex. Arduino Prusa Research),
• Offer DIY kits that provide required parts (non-digitally manufactured components) to build a particular tool (Zimmermann, 2014; Gibney, 2016).
• Offer specialty parts / components, hard-to-find, custom (ex. BackYard Brains or OpenQCM both sell the most specialized and hardest to source components for their respective open hardware tools).
• Help with calibrating and validating (scientific) hardware (can be transactional service) to provide security to prosumers who build their own tools. This provides prosumers with the confidence that their measurements or functionality are acceptably reproducible, accurate and precise.

Hardware and software

• Support, Consulting, Integration (ex. Red Hat, Canonical),consultancy services, tech support offered to traditional organizations, firms, academic labs and even government, related to open innovation and open science. See OuiShare Paris, back in the early 2010's and Sensorica for examples.
• Training & Certification - ex. Linux Foundation certifications, Kubernetes training ecosystems, Open Source Ecology - Fjelsted et al., 2012.
• Ecosystem services: provide trust, validation, discoverability, help, a place to discuss and collaborate, etc.
• Cooperative / Commons-Centric Models, including Platform Cooperatives (ex. Sensorica)
• Donations / Sponsorship (ex. GitHub, Sponsors, Open Collective, Mozilla Foundation),
• Token / Crypto-Based Models (NDO, DAOs, Web3 projects),
• Interface with the crowd (pioneered by Sensorica), helping traditional organizations to crowdsource R&D.

See also open business models patterns.

Compatibility with open source and free licenses and culture

|- | Example || Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example || Example

Caption text

Business Model	Open Source Compatibility	Free (Libre) Compatibility	Notes
Services (consulting, support, integration)	5	5	No restriction on code; revenue from expertise. Strong alignment.
Training & Certification	5	4	Compatible, but introduces scarcity via credentials.
Hardware sales (open hardware)	5	5	Monetizes physical layer; knowledge remains open.
Patronage (donations, grants)	5	5	Ideal commons alignment; no enclosure.
Contribution accounting (OVN models)	5	5	Aligns production and redistribution without restricting access. Example: Sensorica
SaaS / Hosting	5	3	Legally compliant, but concentrates control in infrastructure; weak reciprocity unless copyleft like AGPL is used.
Marketplace / Plugin ecosystems	5	3	Open core ecosystems can drift toward dependency and partial enclosure.
Open Core	5	2	Open subset exists, but deliberate feature withholding undermines commons integrity.
Dual Licensing (e.g. GPL + commercial)	5	3	Legally valid; uses copyleft (e.g. GNU General Public License) strategically; culturally ambiguous.
Token / Crypto incentive systems	4	2	Code often open, but incentives skew toward speculation over cooperation.
Platform capture (centralized control over open stack)	4	1	License respected, but power asymmetry undermines freedom in practice.
Proprietary forks violating copyleft	0	0	Direct license violation.
Relicensing to “source-available” (enclosure)	1	0	Breaks free software principles; restricts user freedoms.

From Sensorica's experience

Sensorica was launched as an OVN focused on designing open source scientific instruments. In the early days, it focused mainly on product development. The intent was to design, sell and service open source scientific instruments, but the reality was other. The first revenues that were generated within the network were in the form of R&D grants in collaboration with academic institutions. Four years after its inception, Sensoricans were called to accompany traditional firms in their first explorations of new and disruptive technologies, such as IoT and Blockchain, exploring potential benefits, prototyping applications (proof of concept) that may fit with the business model, exploring new business models. Sensorica's edge was speed of innovation and more than 50% cost reduction. Sensoricans coined the phrase crowdsourced R&D on demand. In parallel, Sensoricans were also commissioned a few projects by academic labs, with the added value of increased dissemination and adoption of open source hardware, naturally achieved through the social mode of development of the network.

Sensoricans understood that they can position the OVN in innovation, which is "the new gold" in high tech markets. Thus, Sensorica was "sold" as an interface with the crowd through which traditional organizations can engage in open source development, accelerate innovation and cut development costs.

Interfaces between open and traditional organizations the Sensorica experience

See also

• Economic model
• Peer production