Hi,
That sounds like a fine idea to me.
Knowing that some extra documentation is included
when you buy the payware documentation could
attract customers. And the extra docs could
be protected by copyright, and the basic JBoss
docs could stay free.
And other OSS projects seem to have used this
too. For example, lots of good documentation
comes free with Sendmail, but most heavy users
buy the "bat" book anyway.
Best Regards,
Ole Husgaard.
Jay Walters wrote:
>
> This may not be in the spirit of free software either, but perhaps the
> documentation you sell could be more than just a compilation of the html
> pages into a pdf. For example, have the experts write some additional text
> which doesn't go into CVS, with an eye perhaps towards a book.
>
> Cheers
> Jay Walters
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ole Husgaard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 8:26 AM
> To: JBoss-Dev
> Subject: [jBoss-Dev] Documentation withdrawal
>
> Hi,
>
> Tobias Frech wrote:
> > Hey guys!
> > I am wandering on very thin ground at the moment. I hope and will try
> > not to trip on any bad places. Lets see ...
> >
> > As I understand the situation is like follows:
> >
> > Now is the time were at least a little amount of money must come from
> > all the effort put into the project. I think nobody here has money as
> > her or his main reason to contribute, but some also need money to be
> > able to continue.
>
> I have no problem with that.
>
> But if the business model breaks, no income
> will be seen. Instead effort is wasted.
>
> > The project must stay free, that is an requirement of the LGPL. That
> > means that the sources must be available at all times. And they are !
>
> Well, the JBoss program is LGPL.
>
> But I do not know about the documentation
> license. Last time I asked the board, the
> documentation license had not yet been
> determined.
>
> Does anybody know what license the
> documentation is under?
>
> > For documentation everyone is free to download the manual sources and
> > build the docu in whatever format they like.
> >
> > The revenue should come from a precompiled PDFed version of the docu.
> > There is very small fee for the ready PDF version to avoid the hassle of
> > downloading and compiling the docu themselves. I think that is fair. It
> > guarantees LPGL and allows everybody to continue with putting work into
> > the project.
>
> Problem is, if the documentation license
> is free, *nobody* can stop *anybody* from
> compiling the documentation sources
> themselves, and putting a PDF on the web
> for free download.
>
> But if the PDF can be downloaded for free,
> who is going to pay for it?
>
> Sorry, but either this business model is
> broken, or the documentation license is
> not free.
>
> > The jumping point of this discussion and this thread is:
> > Is the zipped HTML version a "threat" to the PDF version, meaning: would
> > providing an archive with HTML lower the "sales" from the PDF version ?
>
> I think so, but not much since web mirroring
> is so easy.
> Also, having the html pages online may lower
> PDF sales.
>
> > Opinions may differ here in how big the impact may be. But I think this
> > is no real big issue and I did give up my point of view here and agreed
> > with not to provide a zip of HTML.
>
> I agree that it is no big issue if a html
> documentation zip is available.
>
> But it is the start of a trend that may be
> dangerous to the JBoss project:
> The next logical step would be to make it
> possible to sell JBoss binaries (to avoid
> the hassle of downloading sources and
> compiling) by removing all JBoss binaries
> from the website.
>
> > I kindly ask you guys to consider doing the same. And if you want to do
> > me a personal favor do not continue this email thread (If you absolutly
> > can't hold back, I suggest starting a new thread named different).
>
> Only problem: If just one person somewhere
> does not agree and puts a PDF and html
> zip online, the business model is broken.
>
> And if we want JBoss to remain free, there
> is *nothing* we can do about it.
>
> > I hope I could clarify what happened and did not not say anything really
> > bad. Let's see if the ground holds at the time I do my next steps ...
>
> Thanks for letting us know.
>
> I do not think that any income can be
> generated from this, unless JBoss (or
> parts of it) become non-free.
> Yes, I think that this business model is
> basically broken.
>
> That was my negative contribution to this
> discussion, but there is also a positive:
>
> I think that it *is* possible to generate
> income from JBoss, just not by taking away
> freedom.
>
> One way of doing this is by providing
> commercial support, as discussed on the
> jboss-user list about a month ago.
>
> This could also be combined with sales of
> packages: You take sources and binaries
> for the latest and greatest stable and
> development versions, and print it on a
> CD. The available documentation is printed
> on paper. And a slip giving access to
> XX days of free commercial support is also
> printed. It is all put in a nice box and
> sold for US$XXX. (If somebody are going to
> do this, please do not do the mistake of
> producing a large number of packages in
> advance. OSS projects develop fast, and
> outdated packages are worth zip.)
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Ole Husgaard.
