The update here is that, for users wanting their own local server to get around IRB/security requirements, we can now provide you with a local-install option. E-mail us at sales@opensciencetools.org if that’s something you need. At the present time we can only support that for institutions with site licenses - the amount of support time in getting it set up is substantial enough not to be sustainable for individual users.
I believe we have been pretty open and explicit about our need for revenue. The code for the JavaScript library (PsychoJS) is fully open source. Only the hosting service is closed source and provides our sustainability model. PsychoJS could not have been developed to this level on evenings and weekends by volunteers, so the question of whether our model is “useful” should take into account whether you want the package to do the things it does.
I believe the key advantages of open source are all maintained, despite the closed-source hosting service:
- Open Science: you can inspect every part of the code that controls the way your experiment runs for participants - that’s all JavaScript and fully available. There are no black-boxes where you have to hope we did it right. The hosting service is the only part that’s closed-source and that isn’t needed from an open science perspective because it doesn’t impact the way your study runs
- Extensibility: You can adapt and extend PsychoJS/PsychoPy as needed and contribute your changes back to the project(s) on github if they’re useful more widely
- No lock-in: Because you have access to all PsychoJS code, if you want to save data to your own server you can adapt the code to do that, assuming you have the technical skills to write it. Note that degree of lock-in is the same for any open-source project - if you create your study in OpenSesame it only runs in OpenSesame unless you have the technical skills to adapt OpenSesame (which is possible because the code is available).
- Low cost: I think, even with Pavlovia fees, this is about the lowest-cost option available (because we’re only looking to cover our modest costs, not to make profit). It’s certainly the cheapest option to include hosting. If you use a self-hosting option (e.g. Lab.js or jsPsych with a Jatos server) then the staff time and server costs would very likely be more than the cost of Pavlovia credits/license
It’s true that we’re offering an unusual model that sits between the expensive commercial outfits and the no-fees open source options, and I personally think that’s a very useful option for you to have. But if you prefer the self-host option there several alternatives out there for you.
hope that helps to make the position more clear
Jon