this business model actually works

[G. Matthew Rice]

bill traynor <btraynor-zC6tqtfhjqE at public.gmane.org> writes:
> What do you mean by custom software?  I'd interpret that as a client
> hiring me to write code for a specific itch that they have.  I'd also
> expect that the client would have exclusive rights to all code I provide
> them.  This sucks of cuorse, but it's the nature of being hired to
> code.  Similarly, if I built a house for someone, I wouldn't expect to
> have any rights to the house afterward.

Not at all, I've been involved in many projects where we've retained
ownership of the code and just granted them a perpetual, royalty-free,
not-for-resale, ... license to the code.

Usually for solutions that are not going to give the client a competitive
advantage and/or they aren't going to pay the full cost of development.

You just have to put this sort of stuff in the contract.


> I've read the "developers dilemma" page and I think I prefer the dual
> license model used by MySQL or SleepyCatSoftware, for now.  In that
> model, clients have a choice of going with the GPL'd version of the
> software, or the (for lack of a better term) the business user license. 

Although most people don't realize it, this option is available to every
GPLed project.  If you can get all of the copyright holders to agree, you can
do anything you want; including license the software under another license.

There is something to be said for asking for copyright transfer on any
submissions to a project that you own, as the FSF does it [nudge, nudge,
wink, wink; know what I mean ;)].  You don't have to go back to the
contributors for any permission when you want to do something against your
own license.


> NOTE: There's way more money in services than licenses or seats.  This

Only if your product is so inherently complicated [I don't get that one
but...] or sucks so badly that people need help to deploy it.  I know a few
companies that can't really make a case for extensive consulting and have to
make it up on licensing fees.


> then allows a company like MySQL to continue to fund development on the
> core package and release improvements back to the community.  I'm having
> difficulty finding flaws in this model given the current conservative
> nature of most coporate IT decision makers, but I'm open to hear
> suggestions.

The battle that Starnix faces most of the time is that people [this seems to
be almost universal] are more willing to spend $250k on hardware solutions
that they can see than on customized solutions and software development to
solve the same problem at $125k.

This also explains why blinkenboxes sell.  They are large empty boxes with
nice blinkenlights [can't find the blinkenbox site so yo'll have to make do
with: http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/b/blinkenlights.html] that you can put
the small, expensive devices in to make them look more impressive.

Hey, for $250k, management wants to see some blinkenlights.

TTYL,
-- 
g. matthew rice <matt-s/rLXaiAEBtBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org>                            starnix inc.
phone: 905-771-0017 x242                        thornhill, ontario, canada
http://www.starnix.com              professional linux services & products
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml