FW: Re:this business model actually works

[bob findlay]

<snip>

>
> 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.
>

You are correct of course.

It is my contention that custom software can come to existence under 2 
different business models.     

The first is the one you describe.     A client hires a developer to write 
some code which they either use internally or resell to their customers.   It 
is typically only larger enterprises who would have the resources to afford 
this type of solution.

The second is that a group of software users,  who individually may not be 
able to afford to hire a custom software developer,   pool their resources 
and contract to have some custom software written.

In both cases the developer has no rights to the software.      In all but 
the resell case the users do.

<snip>

>
> 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.
> Yes, all changes the client makes if they choose the business user
> license does not feed back to the community.  But it does allow a
> company to prosper while developing open source software.  Technology
> based differentiation for a client/company using any piece of software
> is inherent in the modifications they make to it.  The core package is
> usually considered commoditized, as anyone can buy it.  And who better
> to make the changes then the company who wrote the original GPL'd code.
> NOTE: There's way more money in services than licenses or seats.  This
> 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.

I have no problem with the dual licences also ... but only for commodity type 
software like a database or a toolkit etc.      

The theory behind these dual licences is that the more your software is used 
the bigger your user base becomes.   Only a small percentage of your user 
base will opt for the commercial licence.  So the bigger your user base the 
better chance that this small percentage will be sufficient to sustain your 
developers.    The GPL use is what expands your user base.

The reason this theory  doesn't work well for custom software is that this 
type of software rarely has the potential for a large enough user base for 
the math to work out sufficiently to pay the developer who will create the 
software in the first place.     Almost by definition custom software rarely 
gets created in response to a developer's own "itch" ...  it is rather a 
user's (who isn't a developer) "itch" that motivates its creation.

Therein lies the crux of the problem.    Most individual users (who aren't 
themselves developers) can't afford the developer costs so their "itches go 
unscratched".
         
It was my contention that by pooling resources of a group of users under a 
Private Source or Community licence the developer can get paid and the 
software can get created.     

More importantly,  the fact that the users actually own the source under a 
limited form of copyleft guarantees that they will be able to leverage the 
kind of control that open source users enjoy.



>
> Also, I didn't go research this model or anything, so I may have it
> slightly wrong, but I think I got the gist of it.
>
> Thanks
> Bill
>

<snip>
--
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