Licensing question

[Mark James]

On 02/27/10 05:43, Chris Travers wrote:
>> - Like OSS, source is available, and can be freely redistributed and
>> modified, as long as
>>   recipients are informed that they have to purchase a licence from the
>> original author
>>   if and when they make production use of either the software or a derived
>> version.
>>      
>
> So, that is a typical shareware license.  However with it you lose two
> major advantages of FOSS:  Multi-vendor support and the ability to
> fork if necessary.
>    

Chris, Shareware isn't usually source-available, freely
re-distributable, and non-crippled in trial form.

Under the Rails Wheels licence there's no problem forking,
distributing, and selling. You and your users just have to
pay the original author what they've asked. But if you talk
to the creator you have a good chance of being offered a revenue
share on sales of your fork, beyond any charge you've added on
your own.

>> - The original author can grant contributors and forkers free licences or
>> revenue shares.
>>      
> I have been in cases where in order to support my customers I had to
> fork against the wishes of the original software owner.  If you want
> to restrict this, fine.  And I would exercise my right not to use your
> software ;-)
>    

You can fork against their wishes -- you and your users just have to
pay, though you can always charge more and keep the difference.


>>   1. Exposing the source and build system, allowing easy customization and
>> repair, and
>>   2. The unhindered cooperative development model made possible by
>> unrestricted redistribution.
>>      
> There are also two others.
>
> 1)  Choice of vendors for support.
> 2)  The ability of a vendor to fork if necessary (rarely needed but
> really handy if it becomes necessary).
>    

Both possible under a standard Rails Wheels licence.

The other advantage of OSS I should have mentioned, which in
practical terms is probably the most important, is the
greater likelihood that an un-degraded trial version will
be available.

> But I don't see the beer-wise free aspect of OSS as being practical and
> important in all
> circumstances, particularly for smaller packages. TANSTAAFB!
>    
> I have been in business since 2003.  I have made my living on FOSS
> during that time.  The beerwise element is a loss leader.  We make
> money on support services.
>    

Some problems with supporting developers solely with support services:

1. Charging for support reduces the incentive to perfect both the software
    and its (freely-available) documentation. For most users, the best
    form of support is polished releases and good free and freely-editable
    documentation. They don't require customization, or can do it on their
    own.

2. Good support is very expensive, so many poorer customers are likely
    to be worse off than if they just paid modest licencing fees to fund
    improvements in the software and documentation for everyone,
    as well as to get access to a reasonable support infrastructure.

    If support work is sent upstream, the wealthier users get a greater
    say in the direction of the software, and if it isn't, the developer
    ends up devoting much of their time to closed software.

    OSS encourages a support dichotomy: unless a big payer comes along,
    developers and users tell each other that they don't owe them shit.
    Under the dual-licence model, "Community" versions are increasingly
    becoming the poorer cousins of commercial versions.


3. Making it hard for the software writer to directly charge for their
    software denies them the power of replication (mass production), which
    supports the income of just about every big company and wealthy 
individual.
    Customization is hard work, and to fairly reward one's talents one 
should
    be able to get away from doing that alone.


>> There needs to be a way to fund open software so that it can be more than
>> just a
>> side-line or a path to a proprietary software job, and doesn't rely on
>> pan-handling, advertising, or the freemium model (charging for closed documentation,
>> support, or components).
>>      
> There is, at least for business software.  In most cases, the best
> apps only do 80-90% of what the customer really wants because every
> customer is slightly different.  Once you understand that, not only do
> you get to charge for support, you get to charge to help the customer
> maximize the usability of the software.  The better you know the
> software, and the more central your position in the community, the
> more you can charge per hour.  Consider the free download and
> downstream support companies as being free advertising and you begin
> to understand....
>    

Do you know what percentage of your users pay for support?
How many do their own customization and never pay you anything?
How many can't afford you, and must deal with the raw version
of your software, documentation, and support services?

Perhaps it works in your field, but not I think in most.

If you charged for your software according to the recipient's
ability to pay, you may be able to have a finger on the pulse
of more of your users.

Mark