I worked on the original "open source project" for years, starting in 1998.
Netscape created Mozilla as the first open source project and it was meant to be just that, a project. Netscape would lead and contribute to that project to harness the "net community" to improve the code and then they would package it up, brand it, and advertise it as an end user product.
The project was Mozilla and the product was Netscape.
Along the way it became clear the project was in a better position to build a compelling product than Netscape, and so the project created teams to do that and eventually spun out of Netscape as the independent Mozilla Foundation where I was the first product manager, having been before a project manager.
The Mozilla application suite was actually a R&D product, a functional application minus the easy packaging, proper branding, and marketing of something more polished. As soon as the project was no longer dependent on Netscape for the bulk of its work effort, that R&D product transformed into a genuine product and Firefox 1.0 came soon after as our first, from the start, project+product.
No. Open source projects are not automatically products.
Webster says:
Product:
Something (such as a service) that is marketed or sold as a commodity.
For me, a product is something one creates due to demand or expected
demand that can be marketed and sold.
An open-source project can be made simply for the joy of doing it
without any stress about demand, marketing or anything else.
Like going for for a walk, or a gme of chess,
But an open-source project can also be started and created to scratch
and itch, that may become interesting for others perhaps becoming a product.
And it can be created to fill a targetted demand as an intentional product.
Here on Hackernews nearly all open-source projects are products and
exist in the hope of fame and/or money.
But many of us have projects that are just for fun,
Like the compulsion to build your cms and your own static site generator
and everything in between and preferably a programming language and perhaps
an editor.
Though all of those could become a product in some universe.
I am certainly not going to share my craptacular ssg.
They can be, even unexpectedly.
My very first open source project was an initscript to run a headless Minecraft server. This was pre-systemd running on CentOS 6. I was just running the machine for a friend and thought others might find the script useful so I put it on GitHub. It did backups and other stuff too.
I had two Minecraft hosting companies contact me to ask if they could use it in their commercial product.
I said of course, the script is GPL, you can do what you like. If you have any problems your patches are welcome but I'm not your free tech support. (I said it a bit more politely than that)
Once your stuff is out there it's not your decision. There are open source projects suited to becoming products, and there are projects which really should never or could never become products.
Depends on what your definition of a product is? My head cannon says the majority of open source projects are products, as they are published to be consumed/used by others.
Yes, they are products. They compete in a free market with other products. The way you can tell is that the bar for quality raises over time!
What I'll say is that knowing that projects are products doesn't help you much in dealing with maintainers, because assuming they will treat you like they would a customer ignores the variety of pressures providers of free products are under.
What's the motivation for the question?
Sometimes, as with most things
Yes, they are, by definition.
This is the difference between "open source" and "free s/w".
Open source is a process of using public collaboration to develop a for-profit product intended to benefit the product's ownership, while free s/w is the process of user representatives collaboratively developing s/w intended to directly benefit it's users.