-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi, Most of the emails I write in regarding fsf I end up saying the wrong things and get flamed - here's another such letter ;)
I have a bit of a problem. I work on many projects, however one of them is fairly big, and would benefit linux a lot. Unfortunately I have university and work etc to worry about, and development would be slow. On a whim, I mentioned the project to some VC's, and it turns out they love it, and are willing to plow serious amounts of money, and give me a team of developers, etc. Being a uni student, I'm obviously very pleased and excited, but if I did this I would have to make it closed source, and indeed actively protect it.
Again, the problem is that it would benefit (IMHO) linux a lot, but on the other hand, I wouldn't be able to develop it as much, and plus I have a chance to pay off my university fees, and actually run my own business, etc.
Sincerly,
JohnFlux
Hi, John,
Am Mon, 2002-03-18 um 19.54 schrieb John Tapsell:
I have a bit of a problem. I work on many projects, however one of them is fairly big, and would benefit linux a lot. Unfortunately I have university and work etc to worry about, and development would be slow. On a whim, I mentioned the project to some VC's, and it turns out they love it, and are willing to plow serious amounts of money, and give me a team of developers, etc. Being a uni student, I'm obviously very pleased and excited, but if I did this I would have to make it closed source, and indeed actively protect it.
Again, the problem is that it would benefit (IMHO) linux a lot, but on the other hand, I wouldn't be able to develop it as much, and plus I have a chance to pay off my university fees, and actually run my own business, etc.
The question is: who do you write the program for? who do you want to benefit from your program? linux or the user?
If you write your program for the user, and you want the user to benefit from it, it has to be free software of course.
-- Reinhard
John Tapsell tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk wrote:
On a whim, I mentioned the project to some VC's, and it turns out they love it, and are willing to plow serious amounts of money, and give me a team of developers, etc. Being a uni student, I'm obviously very pleased and excited, but if I did this I would have to make it closed source, and indeed actively protect it.
1/ Go read the VC horror stories that litter the net and decide whether it still seems like a good idea.
2/ Why would VC input make it closed source? Are the sort of VCs that can't grok the free software economy really the sort you want to deal with?
3/ Do you mean "linux"? If it's really a closed kernel driver, be prepared for much abuse if it isn't coded perfectly.
Again, the problem is that it would benefit (IMHO) linux a lot, but on the other hand, I wouldn't be able to develop it as much, and plus I have a chance to pay off my university fees, and actually run my own business, etc.
Sincerly,
JohnFlux
More proprietary software will not benefit the Linux kernel.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
More proprietary software will not benefit the Linux kernel.
Sorry for the miswording :) I don't mean anything to do with the linux kernel
JohnFlux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
In such a case: I don't think more proprietary software will benefit anything, except short-sighted people.
Explain?
Are you refering to their reliance on proprietary software, which I could cease support of at any time? I have no intention of signing away IPR, and if the company fails, I would of course open source the program..
hmm, i started making a few other points, but I don't want this to be like the bitkeeper thread ;)
M J Ray ====== What VC horror stories are you thinking about? I'm not actually sure if they are VC's - they help me set up a limited company, and lend me some money to get going, etc.
Also, I can't see a way to make back my costs if I open source it
JohnFlux
John Tapsell tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk wrote:
What VC horror stories are you thinking about?
I'm sure you can find them if you look. Email me off-list if you want me to point fingers. ntk has linked to a few.
I'm not actually sure if they are VC's - they help me set up a limited company, and lend me some money to get going, etc.
Depends on the terms: do they get shares? Do they get control?
Also, I can't see a way to make back my costs if I open source it
Go get yourself business books and look at existing companies that are profitable on free software. (No, we're too young to be a good example yet. We're also deathly secretive about such things, because we're a private company.)
On Monday 18 March 2002 9:00 pm, Petter Sundl�f wrote:
More proprietary software will not benefit the Linux kernel.
Sorry for the miswording :) I don't mean anything to do with the linux kernel
JohnFlux
In such a case: I don't think more proprietary software will benefit anything, except short-sighted people.
That depends what it does. John, can you tell us more aobut it, or are you bound by a confidentiality agreement?
I personally would be rather reluctant to used proprietary software for anything that matters, due to its here today, gone tomorrow nature.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
That depends what it does. John, can you tell us more aobut it, or are you bound by a confidentiality agreement?
Well technically the university owns the IP, and I'm in negotions with them to get it back. Did you see what I said earlier about roughly what it does? Basically makes it a _lot_ easier to write shell scripts, and makes the shell a lot easier to use (context sensitive help, 'clever' piping etc etc)
I personally would be rather reluctant to used proprietary software for anything that matters, due to its here today, gone tomorrow nature.
Perhaps, but then I'm not really targetting you :) I feel exactly the same way - and if I wasn't in my shoes, I'd be arguing for me to make it Free.
JohnFlux
On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 23:55, John Tapsell wrote:
That depends what it does. John, can you tell us more aobut it, or are you bound by a confidentiality agreement?
Well technically the university owns the IP, and I'm in negotions with them to get it back.
What your university may own is not the IP but the copyright, or authorship right, but how exactly so? Did you derive work from that university's proprietary software? Did you sign any document at all granting them the copyright over your work during your university years?
I personally would be rather reluctant to used proprietary software for anything that matters, due to its here today, gone tomorrow nature.
Perhaps, but then I'm not really targetting you :) I feel exactly the same way - and if I wasn't in my shoes, I'd be arguing for me to make it Free.
Then who are you targeting? Because in this area you'll probably be targeting a fairly small amount of users if you expect to go proprietary...
Hugs, rui
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 19 March 2002 00:15, you wrote:
On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 23:55, John Tapsell wrote:
That depends what it does. John, can you tell us more aobut it, or are you bound by a confidentiality agreement?
Well technically the university owns the IP, and I'm in negotions with them to get it back.
What your university may own is not the IP but the copyright, or authorship right, but how exactly so? Did you derive work from that university's proprietary software? Did you sign any document at all granting them the copyright over your work during your university years?
In the UK, and I expect at every university everywhere, you sign a document granting them ownership of your brain when you join.
JohnFlux
John Tapsell tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk wrote:
In the UK, and I expect at every university everywhere, you sign a document granting them ownership of your brain when you join.
As I know all too well, in this situation, the so-called "viral freedom" of the GPL is your friend.
Quite frankly, I think I am offended that public money received by universities (and indeed now the money paid by the students themselves) is used to develop products which are not available for the national good. Why are we paying for their R&D effort that follows a broken product development process? If the public pays, the public should be allowed to use it without paying a second time, surely?
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 12:34:20AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
John Tapsell tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk wrote:
In the UK, and I expect at every university everywhere, you sign a document granting them ownership of your brain when you join.
Quite frankly, I think I am offended that public money received by universities (and indeed now the money paid by the students themselves) is used to develop products which are not available for the national good. Why are we paying for their R&D effort that follows a broken product development process? If the public pays, the public should be allowed to use it without paying a second time, surely?
Because the politics doesn't understand it. We've to make sure they know and understand it. If they still don't do it better maybe we should do it ourself and form a GNU party. Wouldn't that be nice? We could prohibit non-free software!
Ok, let's go back to the real world. ;-)
Jeroen Dekkers
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 12:26:32AM +0000, John Tapsell wrote:
On Tuesday 19 March 2002 00:15, you wrote:
On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 23:55, John Tapsell wrote:
That depends what it does. John, can you tell us more aobut it, or are you bound by a confidentiality agreement?
Well technically the university owns the IP, and I'm in negotions with them to get it back.
What your university may own is not the IP but the copyright, or authorship right, but how exactly so? Did you derive work from that university's proprietary software? Did you sign any document at all granting them the copyright over your work during your university years?
In the UK, and I expect at every university everywhere, you sign a document granting them ownership of your brain when you join.
Recently an article related to this was added to the GNU website: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/university.html
Jeroen Dekkers
On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 21:00, John Tapsell wrote:
More proprietary software will not benefit the Linux kernel.
Sorry for the miswording :) I don't mean anything to do with the linux kernel
Hi John,
So, why would it have to be proprietary? Is that something you fear you would have to do, or was it a requisite from the VC's? Do they know of anything at all about Software Libre? In your case, if you want to convice the VC's, you probably should avoid the words 'free as in gratis'.
So, can you tell us what kind of software it is? You don't have to go into hard core details.
Hugs, rui
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Monday 18 March 2002 21:30, you wrote:
On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 21:00, John Tapsell wrote:
More proprietary software will not benefit the Linux kernel.
Sorry for the miswording :) I don't mean anything to do with the linux kernel
Hi John,
So, why would it have to be proprietary? Is that something you fear you would have to do, or was it a requisite from the VC's?
Well they can't see any way to make money otherwise - I can't really either.
Do they know of anything at all about Software Libre? In your case, if you want to convice the VC's, you probably should avoid the words 'free as in gratis'.
So, can you tell us what kind of software it is? You don't have to go into hard core details.
I probably shouldn't say.. ;) Basically trying to make the linux techies job easier by adding help, and parameters completion, and making shell scripts much easier to write..
JohnFlux
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 06:54:37PM +0000, John Tapsell wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi, Most of the emails I write in regarding fsf I end up saying the wrong things and get flamed - here's another such letter ;)
I also do that when I talk about the Hurd. I blame it on the flaming people. :-)
I have a bit of a problem. I work on many projects, however one of them is fairly big, and would benefit linux a lot. Unfortunately I have university and work etc to worry about, and development would be slow. On a whim, I mentioned the project to some VC's, and it turns out they love it, and are willing to plow serious amounts of money, and give me a team of developers, etc. Being a uni student, I'm obviously very pleased and excited, but if I did this I would have to make it closed source, and indeed actively protect it.
This would make development go more slowly. Maybe it goes faster for a short time, but later on it will slowdown because it's non-free.
Again, the problem is that it would benefit (IMHO) linux a lot, but on the other hand, I wouldn't be able to develop it as much, and plus I have a chance to pay off my university fees, and actually run my own business, etc.
I don't think it won't benefit Linux, GNU, the free software community and our users if it will be proprietary. I guess most people won't even use it although the program is pretty good. I won't for example.
However, if you make your program free software, I'm alsmost sure somebody or something benefits. It's the nice things about free software. Look at the GIMP or the Hurd for example. If those projects weren't free software projects, they would already have failed. Now a lot of people use GIMP and I hope will use the Hurd in the future.
I think you should ask why they want it to be non-free. Why they want to restrict the development of the program. Didn't they want it make development go faster by putting money in it. It's perfectly possible to make money with free software. If you come with good argument and bring it in a good way it should be possible to convince them. If you need help, ask here. If you can't, look for another VC.
Jeroen Dekkers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Didn't they want it make development go faster by putting money in it. It's perfectly possible to make money with free software. If you come with good argument and bring it in a good way it should be possible to convince them. If you need help, ask here. If you can't, look for another VC.
It all boils down to money. They ask me, 'why would a company pay us any money if they can get it for free?'. And I cannot answer - but then I'm not a business man.
particulary since as a closed source system I'd be looking at selling it for 10's of thousands of pounds per client (large company)
To Ray - They get 5% equity, and 1.5% profit - which is _very_ good.
Existing companies based on free software tend to provide a service (I'm thinking redhat etc), which doesn't sound too safe.
JohnFlux
On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 23:41, John Tapsell wrote:
Didn't they want it make development go faster by putting money in it. It's perfectly possible to make money with free software. If you come with good argument and bring it in a good way it should be possible to convince them. If you need help, ask here. If you can't, look for another VC.
It all boils down to money. They ask me, 'why would a company pay us any money if they can get it for free?'. And I cannot answer - but then I'm not a business man.
Well, you can give added value to your software when bought, like warranties, for instance. Good printed documentation (but please, use GNU FDL for this: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html) . That's VERY important for a company when evaluating software. And why should you sell it for a huge amount or a zero amount? You can even sell it for a higher price than at first expected... after all not only it provides good software, but also it provides costumers freedoms they are forbidden.
If competitors arise, you can lower the price, increase added value, etc, and you made the software... you know about it better than anyone! So if someone wants customizations, or other things, who better to call than YOU?
You can also only distribute it exclusively on a phisical media device (like a cd), but then you may run the risk of someone else redistributing... so I don't know if I advise going through that route.
particulary since as a closed source system I'd be looking at selling it for 10's of thousands of pounds per client (large company)
You can give the added value of support per seat (discount in groups, for instance? :))
Contrary to popular belief, some well known software companies earn more money from deals than from selling the software in itself...
Do you have good selling contacts?
Well, these are only some suggestions... take all of them, some of them or none at all.
If the VC's are SO strongly inclined to make the application proprietary... then... can't you really find anyone else?
Remember that they want to maximize the value of their percentage! If you get another VC, they will get 0% of nothing :)
Good luck with your free software application!
Hugs, rui
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi Rui,
Btw, What country are you from? Some friends saw your name and sparked up a long debate about it... :)
I haven't really said what market I was going for - I'm not aiming at selling this for $50, or even $500, but way more - which kinda makes have your points not really applicable in such contexts. Also competitors don't really come into it. Most companies can burn a CD from the internet for no money..
Also the 'VC's (or whatever they are) are non-profit - they take hardly anything.
JohnFlux
Good luck with your free software application!
uh thanks I think :P
JohnFlux
John Tapsell tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk wrote:
Also the 'VC's (or whatever they are) are non-profit - they take hardly anything.
If this is the Prince's Trust, they *are* agreeable to Free Software (but we were not asking for the amounts of money they deal in) but they *will* ask nasty questions of your business plans. If your particular adviser is anti-FS for some reason, talk to another one.
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 12:24:50AM +0000, John Tapsell wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi Rui,
Btw, What country are you from? Some friends saw your name and sparked up a long debate about it... :)
:) The same that I'm from... Do a little Internet work and you'll get there.
Skeaping about the University, in my country we don't sign any document about granting ownership, but I've asked a professor about this and he could only say that as I have the right to do with the software as I like, so does the University. Anyway, my rights were not removed.
I haven't really said what market I was going for - I'm not aiming at selling this for $50, or even $500, but way more - which kinda makes have your points not really applicable in such contexts.
You may still sell by 50000 £ if you like, and still have the software GPL'ed. After all, you're not obligated to distribute your software to everybody and make it available in a home page for everybody to download for free.
If you make your software GPL but available only to paying customers, then depending of those customers your software will probably not end up being available for everyone but will still be free (as in speech).
Of course, those customers will be allowed to distribute it for free or for a fee, but depending on the market of your application they could have no reason to do so.
Regards, Luciano Rocha
Good luck with your free software application!
uh thanks I think :P
(Now, this was funny!)
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 12:24:50AM +0000, John Tapsell wrote:
Also competitors don't really come into it. Most companies can burn a CD from the internet for no money..
Yes, but who is going to put your software on the internet? You probably won't put it there, you are only going to sell it. The people who bought it? They have the freedom to do so, but are they really going to do it? If they do it and make your company fail, how do they get bugfixes and new releases?
In the bad case from another company, but those developers have to get familiar with the source first. That costs time, time costs money and in the end their product will be more expensive than yours. And don't forget that they also have to make money. How are they going to do it a company can get the software for a lower price from you?
Of course I've to add that I'm not a business man, but I think you can really make money with software. At least if you target at companies. If your target is the general public, I've my doubts.
Jeroen Dekkers
John Tapsell tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk wrote:
It all boils down to money. They ask me, 'why would a company pay us any money if they can get it for free?'. And I cannot answer - but then I'm not a business man.
Then you have no place in business. Sorry. Go learn a while, or find someoen who is and will teach you while running this company.
particulary since as a closed source system I'd be looking at selling it for 10's of thousands of pounds per client (large company)
Yes, holding customers to ransom and screwing as much money as possible out of the ones you have is always a good business action(!) OK, if you find some gullible people, you get into the black quicker, but at what price?
To Ray - They get 5% equity, and 1.5% profit - which is _very_ good.
OK, Tapsell, and what about the control I asked about? etc.
Existing companies based on free software tend to provide a service (I'm thinking redhat etc), which doesn't sound too safe.
We're the same. Programming is a service and relatively expensive because the time of skilled programmers is limited. The natural price for programs is near-zero because they are infinitely reproducible. Any attempt to violate that basic result is going to end horribly eventually. All you can do is try to use various legalistic obstructions to try to avoid it for a while.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 19 March 2002 00:19, MJ Ray wrote:
John Tapsell tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk wrote:
It all boils down to money. They ask me, 'why would a company pay us any money if they can get it for free?'. And I cannot answer - but then I'm not a business man.
Then you have no place in business. Sorry. Go learn a while, or find someoen who is and will teach you while running this company.
come now, lets not troll each other :P
Most of the business parts of the company are done by the venture I do it with (what I've been calling the VC's for lack of a better term) They also pay for business training for me :)
particulary since as a closed source system I'd be looking at selling it for 10's of thousands of pounds per client (large company)
Yes, holding customers to ransom and screwing as much money as possible out of the ones you have is always a good business action(!) OK, if you find some gullible people, you get into the black quicker, but at what price?
I see where you are coming from - but at the end of the day I'm offering a product. I'm the 95% shareholder, so no one is going to force me to do anything I consider too unethical :)
I will be selling them the product on the basis that it will save them money - - if indeed it does, and they make back the money they paid me, does that still count as me 'screwing as much money as possible out of [them]' ?
To Ray - They get 5% equity, and 1.5% profit - which is _very_ good.
OK, Tapsell, and what about the control I asked about? etc.
Sorry, I was sort of implying that there was nothing else (Well, on top the business has to pay back 2/3 of its initial debt it incurs). I have full control over the company.
JohnFlux
John Tapsell tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk wrote:
I will be selling them the product on the basis that it will save them money
- if indeed it does, and they make back the money they paid me, does that
still count as me 'screwing as much money as possible out of [them]' ?
I presume that you are going to make them agree to a licence agreement that (at least) requires them to either pay you recurring fees, not distribute originals, copies or modifications, and/or terminate their usage on your request, so as to prevent them obtaining a copy from a second source. Effectively, you plan to trap your customers to buying from you or junking all they've done? Then you can charge them as much as possible? If so, I think that's an entirely accurate description.
Apologies, but it is late here now, so I may be ineloquent.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 11:41:26PM +0000, John Tapsell wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Didn't they want it make development go faster by putting money in it. It's perfectly possible to make money with free software. If you come with good argument and bring it in a good way it should be possible to convince them. If you need help, ask here. If you can't, look for another VC.
It all boils down to money. They ask me, 'why would a company pay us any money if they can get it for free?'. And I cannot answer - but then I'm not a business man.
Neither am I. I just use my knowledge and some logic. :)
English is a bad language, especially the phrase "for free". For free means gratis, which your software isn't. Your only give freedoms to your customers, but they still have to pay for it.
particulary since as a closed source system I'd be looking at selling it for 10's of thousands of pounds per client (large company)
Why wouldn't a company pay that if you don't even restrict them from doing what they want with the software? They get additional freedoms, they should actually pay more instead of less. :)
Existing companies based on free software tend to provide a service (I'm thinking redhat etc), which doesn't sound too safe.
I think redhat makes a lot of money with software sales combined with support.
Jeroen Dekkers
On Monday 18 March 2002 6:54 pm, John Tapsell wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi, Most of the emails I write in regarding fsf I end up saying the wrong things and get flamed - here's another such letter ;)
I have a bit of a problem. I work on many projects, however one of them is fairly big, and would benefit linux a lot. Unfortunately I have university and work etc to worry about, and development would be slow. On a whim, I mentioned the project to some VC's, and it turns out they love it, and are willing to plow serious amounts of money, and give me a team of developers, etc. Being a uni student, I'm obviously very pleased and excited, but if I did this I would have to make it closed source,
Have the VCs explicitly said that?
and indeed actively protect it.
What if you made it time-delayed open source, like Ghostscript? Would they go for that?
Again, the problem is that it would benefit (IMHO) linux a lot,
Even as closed source?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Being a uni student, I'm obviously very pleased and excited, but if I did this I would have to make it closed source,
Have the VCs explicitly said that?
They said that in business you need to find a way to protect your goods by 'black box'ing it.
and indeed actively protect it.
What if you made it time-delayed open source, like Ghostscript? Would they go for that?
I got mixed reactions about this - they said companies tend to look at a period of 1.5 years - so even if I told the companies I was going to open source it in 2 years time, they wouldn't care and it wouldn't affect their plans to buy it.
Also my exit strategy is 3 years - I couldn't OS it before then - in the third year I'd be paying back close to several thousand pound a month in loans, so I daren't do anything to upset the cash flow during that time ;)
But after that it would be fine. But then who knows where we'll be in 3 years...
Again, the problem is that it would benefit (IMHO) linux a lot,
Even as closed source?
Nope - thats the problem.
JohnFlux
John Tapsell tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk wrote:
Have the VCs explicitly said that?
They said that in business you need to find a way to protect your goods by 'black box'ing it.
You only need to do that if you are not the best at what you do.
But after that it would be fine. But then who knows where we'll be in 3 years...
If your product is worthwhile, you will be obsolete by then. Either a Free Software replacement will be developed, forcing you into doing what you should have done originally, or a larger competitor's closed product will kill yours so you might as well open and do what you should have done originally. Either way, your loss of reputation is massive and possibly catastrophic
Of course, that is assuming that you're not planning to use some other dubious tactic such as process patents to prolong the agony.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
If your product is worthwhile, you will be obsolete by then. Either a Free Software replacement will be developed, forcing you into doing what you should have done originally, or a larger competitor's closed product will kill yours so you might as well open and do what you should have done originally. Either way, your loss of reputation is massive and possibly catastrophic.
Or same scenario, but from another point of view, I make a bit of money for myself, other people see it and develop better/ Free versions, and I get to tell my parents and uni friends how I owned a company for a year or whatever :)
Of course, that is assuming that you're not planning to use some other dubious tactic such as process patents to prolong the agony.
grin One-Click-Linux .. hmm... ;)
JohnFlux
John Tapsell tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk wrote:
Or same scenario, but from another point of view, I make a bit of money for myself, other people see it and develop better/ Free versions, and I get to tell my parents and uni friends how I owned a company for a year or whatever
Alternative scenario, you develop the Free version and build a successful company on it while not holding back progress... which is better?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 19 March 2002 00:45, you wrote:
John Tapsell tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk wrote:
Or same scenario, but from another point of view, I make a bit of money for myself, other people see it and develop better/ Free versions, and I get to tell my parents and uni friends how I owned a company for a year or whatever
Alternative scenario, you develop the Free version and build a successful company on it while not holding back progress... which is better?
I will try my hardest to do this - but I'm going to find it hard to persuade anyone to support me. ;(
JohnFlux
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discussion
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hey,
I'm about to go and twist my universities arm to try to get ownership of my ideas... wish me luck :)
I'm considering doing two versions - one being open and the other not. I need to develop a basic framework - so I was thinking I would develop this, plus some fancy arsed add-ons for it, and sell that to companies, and after its tested etc, release the framework to everyone else..
And keep doing that - produce new add-ons (as such), releasing the older add-ons as a framework for anyone else to build on/improve.
Thoughts?
Also, thinking about licenses... it would halve my development time to build on GPL'ed software. I was thinking in an ideal world I could improve on them, then sell this to the companies, hoping they won't just 'steal' it (in quotes) and sell it themselves...
Can I have an agreement they won't distribute the code/binaries for say 1/2 a year? or is this illegal/immoral? Are there any moral and legal ways I could something along these lines?
Oh, and on another topic - If I take something based on a BSD license, and develop it - what happens to IPR? Do I have the IPR over the binaries/code it produces?
JohnFlux
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 01:32:28PM +0000, John Tapsell wrote:
Also, thinking about licenses... it would halve my development time to build on GPL'ed software.
Yes, that's free software!
So you only need to generate half the money because you only need half the development time. This makes it a lot easier to be profitable. Maybe this is a good argument to tell. (Maybe one of the best) :-)
I was thinking in an ideal world I could improve on them, then sell this to the companies, hoping they won't just 'steal' it (in quotes) and sell it themselves...
If they start selling it, you stop selling it to them. Then you've got a new version and they don't. Then they don't have anything to sell anymore, if they make changes to it those changes need to be GPL'd also if your software is under the GPL. I'm not sure you can make a profitable business out of that. If they abuse the freedom you give them, punish them by not selling new versions to them.
Of course you can make some kind of deal that they you get a percentage of the money they make on selling software or whatever. I don't really see this as a problem. Your company is the only one who has people who are familiar with the program and its code. I think companies are willing to pay for new versions and support.
There is also another advantage for the companies if the software is free. If bad things happen and your company fail, they can go to another company and ask them to develop new features for the program.
Can I have an agreement they won't distribute the code/binaries for say 1/2 a year? or is this illegal/immoral? Are there any moral and legal ways I could something along these lines?
I think this is moral. I'm not sure its needed. About the legal thing I'm not sure, I think it's possible if you just make a deal. They get the GPL'd software, they pay an amount of money for that. If they redistribute it further within an half year, they have to pay more for that.
Oh, and on another topic - If I take something based on a BSD license, and develop it - what happens to IPR? Do I have the IPR over the binaries/code it produces?
You don't have the full rights, you still have to keep the copyright notice. You have the right to redistribute it under another license however.
Jeroen Dekkers
On Tue, 2002-03-19 at 14:32, John Tapsell wrote:
Can I have an agreement they won't distribute the code/binaries for say 1/2 a year? or is this illegal/immoral? Are there any moral and legal ways I could something along these lines?
that would break the GPL! GPLed software cannot be distributed with supplemental limitations!
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
Let's say you do GPL it, but then sell for lots of money.
A company that buys it could distribute it for free, or themselves charge. So you refuse to sell upgrades to them, they lose the competetive edge over other companies, they run into trouble as a result.
I would think most companies would not take such a short term view. Of course, a rival could buy a copy and improve it, but theirs would have to be GPLed as well.
Tony
On Monday 18 March 2002 11:49 pm, John Tapsell wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Being a uni student, I'm obviously very pleased and excited, but if I did this I would have to make it closed source,
Have the VCs explicitly said that?
They said that in business you need to find a way to protect your goods by 'black box'ing it.
and indeed actively protect it.
What if you made it time-delayed open source, like Ghostscript? Would they go for that?
I got mixed reactions about this - they said companies tend to look at a period of 1.5 years - so even if I told the companies I was going to open source it in 2 years time, they wouldn't care and it wouldn't affect their plans to buy it.
If people will still buy it despite it being open sourced down the road, then that's an argument in *favour* of time-delayed open source, surely...
Also my exit strategy is 3 years - I couldn't OS it before then - in the third year I'd be paying back close to several thousand pound a month in loans, so I daren't do anything to upset the cash flow during that time ;)
...except that 3 years later you won't have that product to sell; perhaps you'd be able to seel an updated, improved version -- or that might not be possible for your product.
But after that it would be fine. But then who knows where we'll be in 3 years...
Perhaps you could have it in oyur contract of sale that the product becomes open source when either thew company ceases trading, or ceases to actively update the product.