Is open Source SaaS is just SaaS with better marketing

[pkrulz101]

The OS community celebrates that we've "cracked" the open source business model with products like Cal.com, Plane, and Twenty - where the pitch is "the software is 'free', you just pay for hosting." We're all broadly aware that it's primarily a clever GTM strategy. Build in public, get community buzz, ride the "open source alternative to X" wave, and leverage that for sales.

When a user pays for traditional SaaS, they know they're buying software functionality, with hosting being implicit. The OSS model just flips the narrative: hosting is explicit, while software is "free." But if 99% of users lack the technical capability to self-host, manage security patches, handle DB migrations, or meaningfully contribute code - aren't we just reframing what they're paying for? The benefits of OSS (auditability, no vendor lock-in, community governance) are real, but they primarily serve technical users. For everyone else, a "hosting fee" is functionally identical to a SaaS subscription. Maybe the narrative: you're paying for the operational expertise/convenience that makes the software usable for non-technical users, and the "open source" label is mostly a marketing tool to stand out in a crowded SaaS market.

IDK really keen to just get some thoughts - don't get me wrong, I really love OSS and use the stated products above everyday. But I'm just curious to get other opinions.

[speedgoose]

I have been burned by quite a few projects that start open source and then switch to enterprise only closed source after a few years, abandoning the small community.

The last one is Hasura and I am now done with such open source SaaS. I would rather dig the Apache foundation graveyard.

[satvikpendem]

Yes it is, but you have to be careful with bait and switches where they change the license from OSS to source available or proprietary closed source.