"Nuno Lopes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <snip, building .NET/C# CMS/Protal, embryonic, > maybe go open source> > > The question is how to fund that development? > > <snip, services not an option in early development>
Very big question, and I've thought about this a lot. At the risk of being cained in public by some groups, I'll proffer my humble thoughts. An overly simplified argument for/against open source (to keep things brief and on topic), is: FOR R&D GOING OPEN SOURCE: (1) Cheap labor. AGAINST R&D GOING OPEN SOURCE: (1) Give up coordination and control. (2) Complex business model. Yes, I know this is WAY too simple to capture what's going on. I'm generally in favor of open source, but it has pragmatic issues when it comes to "real life". That's why most open source projects are merely copies of successful commercial projects (generally less innovation than by private companies), and lots of stale open source efforts exist. I say this as I buy yet another kick-butt Linux box (mine died yesterday, and I'm grieving in a big way). Neither one helps you in early stages, like you are now. It's easy to compromise what you're really trying to do when diluting the concept among an open source community, unless your "partners" are all of the same mind (it's always an issue of misunderstandings, or inaccurate assumptions of directions). Humans are just as hard to work with in the open source world as the commercial world (difficulty managing the developmental process), but IMHO, you have less to offer them in open source than the commercial world does. (And, be wary, as I've seen many partnerships end in bloodshed and divorce.) Most of all, STAY AWAY from desperation-based decisions. In general, I believe it's only specialized industries that can "get away" with an all-services revenue model. You can do it, but it's for special kinds of people (ya gotta be good), and there's much less room for error. When it comes down to it, you're really just stuck with private funding (you or others donating time because they believe, or vulture capital with the promise of future commercial profits). It's not good news, I'm afraid. But, you can clearly be successful with open source or some hybrid model. Whether commercial or open source, until the project is established, regular development rules apply. First, IMHO, you need a strong visionary (zealot?) that can be consistent and stay-the-course. One of the better (sustainable) models I've seen relating to your question is Bitkeeper: http://www.bitkeeper.com/Sales.Licensing.Overview.html ...where they dance the line between open source and private/commercial (there are also a number of interviews with them on the web discussing their thoughts on the open source business model, and I think they raise valid points). Also, there's the Qt type business model, which is clearly successful (regardless of your political stance as to their decisions). I'd sum it up as, "be high quality (the best?), give away something, but the best stuff costs money". (We could go for hours on this one with religeon, philosophy, and pragmatics; but, I'd better stop as my posts are usually too long.) --charley [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/ -- http://cms-list.org/ trim your replies for good karma.
