on Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 01:47:21PM +0000, David ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 13:43, Risto S Varanka wrote:
> > > My issues > > > 1: I do not want to be a services only company, in fact I want to sub > > > contract most services (maybe even zope type model). > > > 2: I do want to be able to sell the system for a profit. > > > > Then you probably don't want to give out too much freely. One risk > > is that you could give a starting point to a vigorous open source > > project that would become your competitor. > > That is the real problem for me. This is a frequently cited concern. IMO it's largely a non-issue. First, any potential competitor faces an identical equation. A proprietary company may try to chase you from a market. However a free software competitor faces essentially the same problem: you can undercut their software sales price. Your bytes are free regardless, if you're following a free software model. You're looking elsewhere for a differentiator. *That* is going to be a product or service which: - Has a significant marginal cost of production. - Favors a long-term credible relationship. To most minds, this translates to services, hardware, or a marriage of the two, in addition to software. For the second time, I strongly recommend you look at my comments to FSL regarding the Software 500 list, and the number of pure-play software companies in the first 20 companies on this list. http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?mss:7011:200201:aeaodelkpbnhblgbdfno The answer is 1, its position is 2, its 2000 revenues are exeeded by 107% by the top-ranked firm. Pure-play software is largely *not* a viable strategy. At median, it's an US$30m/yr company strategy (mixed model median is $56m/yr). > > You could consider GPL licensing for some parts of the system, > > because then commercial competition can't take the code into their > > closed prodocts. (Unless they break the law, which might happen...) > > If you want others to develop and maintain some parts of the code, > > so you save a bit on development costs, give those parts out as open > > source. If you give out that code under LGPL, you can take all the > > modifications and patches you get from community, and build your > > proprietary components on top of the LGPLed parts. > > > What do you think of GPL and having develoeprs sign an assignation of > copyright statement that would allow GPL releases and also proprietary > releases (similar to what SUN are trying with StarOffice). There are varying opinions on this strategy. The opinions that matter are those of the developers (or their employers) you're dealing with. There's a strong argument to be made for copyright assignment (it makes certain aspects of copyright litigation more straightforward, according to numerous legal authorities), but assymetric rights assignment raises some hackles. > > You could also give the code for free or for charge to other > > companies, under an NDA or a limited license. You could include a > > clause that allows the other party to treat the code under > > GPL/LGPL after a specified period, like 2 years or so. (Think of > > this as a kind of guarantee they get when they purchase your > > product.) If the license is permissive enough, other companies > > could use your product as part of theirs. > > I will look into the delayed public license again for this purpose. Does > anyone know where this is. It's a concept, not a particular license. Peter Deutsche has described this, IIRC on FSB. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
msg00120/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature