Hi Ryan!
> > Quite possible it will be open source. (IMHO these two are not completely
> mutually exclusive)
>
> "Shareware" requires a payment to be made to the author. Open Source
> requires the the source be freely redistributable. That's mutually
> exclusive.
not all shareware *require* a mandatory payment. Lots of shareware simply have a
provision (e.g.
recommendation) to make such payment, while you are free to redistribute shareware
and/or use it as
long as you like (exact terms vary). Open source shareware, freely redistributable
with source code
will have more problems in encouraging people to make this payment to author but
that's different
issue entirely. This is far from ideal environment to work in for small-time software
developer, but
heck, if it all it takes to get D20 logo, I will go for it. ;)
> > Open source is a perfectly viable commercial business model.
> Well of course it is. Red Hat makes a lot of money selling you something
Ah, if I just had Ring of Three Wishes, I would immediately spend the first two to
make Masters
Tools and NWN to adapt this "viable commercial business model" this very moment. ;) [
Just kidding
;) ]
Open source is very interesting and innovative movement, but it has way and way to go
before getting
the status of serious business. ( guess you know all RHAT profits so far, right? )
Shareware is
older and more reliable concept, it has proven history of giving customer better
control of the
product comparing to retail, while leaving author with some compensation for his work.
As usual the
best algorithm is probably adaptive - try to take best from both worlds - build core
business on
solid shareware base, open sources and formats for peripheral components, data models,
plug-ins,
etc.
- Max
