All these licenses and business models

Fri Jan 18 06:38:29 UTC 2002

on Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:49:02PM +0000, David (dirvine at david-irvine.com) wrote:
> Hi,
> Sorry for the email I am looking for some advice on licensing, I am not
> looking for legal advice simply some helpfull tips that I will not hold
> anyone to.
> 
> I have a company with a software product that runs on a linux distro
> (based on an RPM distro). Thsi product is a small business server with
> simple web admin and apps included (email , schedule, doc management,
> crm etc.).
>  
> I have spent a lot of my own money and some more (over $300,000) in
> development etc. now we have no cash to launch the product. I have
> always looked at open source and really wish to be involved in that area
> (especially as we use it). I have approached a Linux magazine in the UK
> and they will put the cd out on their magazine and help launch an open
> source version - thats great.
> 
> 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.
> 3: I do want to make source avaliable to let developers and interested
>    parties get involved in the system.
> 4: I would like to employ only developers who actually contribute to the
>    project and pay them for development.
> 5: I would like many to get the system free (education etc.)
> 6: I would like to ensure nobody can steal the product or at least delay
>    this until we are a substanical company (if we are not good then
>    somebody should fork but I would prefer a fighting chance).

Consider posting to the free software business list (FSB:
http://www.crynwr.com/fsb/), to which many of the same people are
subscribed, but whose focus is specifically the problem of developing a
business around the principles of free software.

There's been some recent discussion, starting with the question "why
would I pay for Ximian" on the list, in which I provided my own views of
what the prospects of pure-play software are, and where the likely
strengths of free software are.   The archives include much useful
discussion, I'd recommend mining them.  See also Shapiro and Varian's
_Information Rules_ (http://www.inforules.com/).

If you're not sure of what FS licensing fits your needs, try considering
your business as being based on a proprietary model, and ask yourself
these questions:

  - Where does my revenue come from?

  - What are my primary expenses?

  - How big do I want my company to become?  What's my exit strategy
    (retirement, partnership, sale, bankruptcy, other)?

  - How do I promote my product?  How do I achieve initial market
    penetration and generate awareness of my product.

  - How does my business interact with competition?  Is this competition
    offering substantially similar products?  Is this competition
    offering competing proprietary or free software products?  What are
    the long-term effects of viable free software, or (perhaps) a large,
    well-heeled, proprietary firm with a strong market advantage and
    deft use of lock-in tactics?

  - Who are my customers?  Can they pay for my product?  Will they pay
    for my product?  Are they currently served?  By me?

  - Is third party modification of my software a net plus or minus?

  - How do I generate developer interest in my product?  Is this
    necessary for product growth?

  - How does my choice of a particular free software license (or
    proprietary terms instead) affect any of the above issues?

There's a business story which I've unfortunately utterly lost track of,
dating from the past 6-9 months.  It looks at successful business
strategies, and finds that most _aren't_ strongly tied to stranglehold
IP practices, but to deft execution of the actual job of running a
business.  Don't overvalue the former, or overly discount the latter.

> I have seen a lot of pseudo open source stuff about even GPL'd and do
> not want to do that (I am talking about companies that elease stuff
> that would be almost impossible to develop with, little documentation
> and hard to find recent source). I have also seen companies blindly
> going GPL and trying to become service based and failing (I feel
> developers do not automatically become good service providers).

Many companies fail, free software or otherwise.  The answers I ask
above hold for _any_ business, this isn't a strictly free/proprietary
software tack.  The involvement of free software is as a strategy which
may provide benefits (or disadvantages) to your business plan.
Execution is the most crucial part, FS alone isn't going to make you or
break you.  My own assessment is that the largest free software
companies aren't generally considered either by themselves or by the
market to be "FSBs" in a traditional sense:  IBM, HP, the US Government.
However, they meet the FSB list's own charter:  they all have
significant involvement in free software activities as a course of their
activities.

If you're looking to particular licensing models which might be more
business-friendly, consider combinations involving the MIT/BSD licenses,
the Mozilla license, or the IBM PL (there's also a "non-branded" license
based on the IPL which I'm blanking on at the moment), as well as L.
Peter Deutsch's "delayed" public license scheme previously mentioned.
Each of these licenses has as a strong authoring intent the ability to
use parts or all of a work in the course of business.  Remember too that
while an FS license may not directly provide revenue, it can introduce
very powerful dynamics with tremendous implications for your business.

Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>        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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20020117/1fc6d20b/attachment.sig>