What do you recommend?

Alberto Lepe dev at alepe.com
Fri Mar 6 01:17:26 UTC 2009

Wow! I'm amazed with all the answers I got! thank you very very much to all
of you for taking your time to answer me!

The software license is GPLv3. But I think before doing anything else, I
will follow Michael Tiemann's advice (thank you for your detailed
explanation. I really admire you of what you have achieved). I will talk
with my boss and see if we can contact some Japanese companies...

After reading your comments I feel relief. Personally, I have some projects
that I have been planning for a while to release as OSS but I wasn't sure if
it was a good idea or not. I usually share my codes for free at my personal
web page (alepe.com) but never a formal OSS. I will be glad to do it soon,
now that I know there is no risk but opportunities in it.

Thank you again for all your time reading and anwering my post.

Please have a nice day!

Alberto Lepe.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Cinly Ooi <cinly.ooi at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
>>  If we go with b), I'm aware that the product itself will improve and many
>>> more people will be more interested in it, which can help us to improve our
>>> popularity.
>>> However, any other Japanese company (with more resources) could get in,
>>> at any time, and sell the support taking us out of that bussiness...
>> That is a common fear, and I had that fear for a moment.  Then I realized
>> how the GPL protected me from a much larger company.  If LargeCompany
>> decided to provide their own version and support, the GPL prevents
>> LargeCompany from forbidding their customers from sharing their changes with
>> *you*.  Therefore, if LargeCompany adds their effort to your effort, your
>> own product and your own services become more valuable to customers that
>> know you best.  And LargeCompany potentially creates more customers who want
>> specialized services that LargeCompany cannot provide.
> All customers are price-sensitive, but in software business this does not
> always mean the provider with the lowest price always wins, but the one
> providing the most value-for-money wins. Your challenge is therefore to
> provide the best value for money.
> In my experience, when I pay for open source software, I want the company
> to which I can throw all my problem to and they will resolve my problem in a
> timely manner. If I have more than one company to choose from, I will prefer
> to go to the company that has the most expertise with the software, even if
> it is more expensive than the rest but as long as it stays within my price
> range. It is virtually always true that the company higher up the developer
> tree has more expertise than the one below, therefore, I will always try to
> go as high up the tree as possible. After all, if I pay the other party and
> they cannot solve my problem, my boss is not going to be happy, since the
> company is in exactly the same position it would had been if we just
> download the software for free. I am sure I am not alone in thinking this
> way.
> There are always people who will not pay for your open source software and
> will prefer to go without they have to pay. They, by definition, are not
> your potential customers. There are always going to be customers that will
> always go for the lowest price.
> I would say the majority of the medium size companies (those that will be
> interested in 'buying' open source software) are competent enough to know
> that the expertise of the company they buy from is more important than the
> low price.
> Take Tiemann's advice and talk to other Japanese companies that has gone
> down the open source route. I am sure you will find them willing to advice
> you as long as you are not competing with them. I find that open source
> people are generally more open then proprietary source people. In any case
> there is no harm asking.
> Best Regards,
> Cinly
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20090306/27b4dc99/attachment.html>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list