For example, an open source "community edition" could be treated as a freemium product and an OSS marketing could adapt a PLG playbook to help identify and nurture those who are good candidates for the "enterprise edition". Also, you have a community. They're in Slack or Discord, making pull requests, filing Github issues. You should be able to adapt the CLG playbook to help identify and nurture future customers from within the community.
In practice, I have never once seen this work. Arguably Canonical and Red Hat are the two best examples of CLG/OSS business models, and both of them have uneasy relationships with the greater Open Source community. Canonical is seen and treated as the Microsoft of the Linux world; their promises aren't worth the bits they're delivered on, and they'll sacrifice anything for money. Red Hat is cautiously embraced by the community despite being much more benevolent, usually because their aligned interests don't always consider power users or extensible architecture. They move fast, break things, and forgot to ask your opinion.
Neither Canonical or Red Hat are particularly well-loved by the greater Linux community, for wildly different reasons. At the core of their failure is the illusion of a successful Open Core business (or "freemium" as you put it). The delusional business obsession over ruining the free version of software is exactly why Open Source is so successful where businesses fail. You should research why Linux and BSD won over the alternatives from AT&T and IBM; they didn't have a premium or pro version, they were the pro version. The creation story of GPL, Free Software and Linux as a whole is a warning about how business models collapse when they molest functionality for money.
I see your point, but I have to believe there is a commercial path that can be mindfully pursued. You can build hosted tools, or add commercial value with an "app" model where there is a clear division between the platform, which is free, and the apps, which can be paid or not.
The ffmpeg streaming model might do wonders for mobile battery life. I've been told that specialized video decoding chips are a lot less energy intensive than other types of client side rendering.
I mean, for myself, I am able to describe it in single sentence, though likely of no use to anyone else; that being:
Using observe-orient-decide-act-loop, minimize entropy creation for yourself, while maximizing future opportunities available relative to overall ecosystem dynamics.
To me "future opportunities available relative to overall ecosystem dynamics" reads as an euphemism for entropy, so that your advice seems to boil down to "let the others fuck up". Not a ineffective advice at that.
There’s no single optimal generalizable path, though completely agree that accrue value, move slow, reduce loses, do nothing, etc. — are frequently overlooked as more effective paths forward.
Maybe, though this is assumed via “overall ecosystem dynamics” and “ maximizing future opportunities available” - since in some situations having a less optimal position in the near future is the optimal response long term, though maybe you’re including “better” to cover that, but then to me better feels redundant.
The stated purpose of copyright law is to promote the Progress of Science and the Arts.
Congress decided to grant limited "rights" to copyright holders as incentives for them create, not to protect their work forever, but in exchange for it to be widely available and eventually in the public domain.
That these incentives take the form of limited protections is a side effect. That the original purpose is often corrupted and delivered ham-handedly has more to do with politics than purpose.
If we argued from first principles, we could invent a better system, but that system would undoubtedly allow for ingestion and manipulation by AI.
Just saying