Re: [Fsfe-uk] Funding Open Source

[ian]

On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 08:54, Alex Hudson wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 08:36, ian wrote:
> > > It seems
> > > fairly clear to me that Scribus could be commercially viable, but of
> > > course building a business around free software development is tricky in
> > > the very least (many, myself included, think it impossible).
> > 
> > I hope not because if it is my business plan is down the swanee :-)
> > Actually, I think you have to link things together.
> 
> Yeah, I think we're probably agreeing here. My point was that I don't
> think it's possible to sit working on a piece of free software you want
> to work on and get paid for it - there obviously will be examples where
> that is the case, but I don't think it could be thought of as a business
> model.
> 
> If you want to work on free software and get paid, the most obvious way
> is to ask people to pay you to extend software they use, either
> functionally or working on stability or something. But, you probably
> don't get to work on Scribus.

Not at the moment, but schools might want to change from Publisher
en-masse at some time in the future so they (or someone like me) might
pay for say a publisher filter. You could also apply for grants - I got
a DTi smart Award to develop Wegister for example. Ok you have to tell
them its going to be licenses and give a business plan to say how many
licenses you sell but there is nothing to stop you then GPL ing it. They
don't ask for the money back! There are also EU grants available but
agian you have to get the finance - mind so would any inventor/setter up
of a small business.

> One of the other alternatives is to setup a company based around selling
> Scribus. This time you probably do get to keep working on Scribus, but
> then you have all sorts of other pesky stuff to deal with - lots of
> customers, support, etc...

Ah well its like schools. Fine when there are no kids there ;-) If you
want to work for yourself or in a small business you have to accept that
its more than just doing one task. I actually prefer this way of
working. I hated being a cog in a large bureaucracy and would go window
cleaning before I did that again. Its horses for courses.

> > The incentive to use the GPL is that fact you can save money by using
> > other people's work as a starting point. 
> 
> Well, the same goes for all other free software licences too, pretty
> much (modulo whatever the thing you're starting from is licenced under).

Yes, just the GPL is probably the best know.

> 
> > > Reverse engineering is protected under the European Copyright Convention
> > > for the furthering of interoperability. Technically, you should be okay.
> > > Practically, you could probably expect your day in court.
> > 
> > If the court actions keep failing they will stop as it will simply cost
> > the plaintive money.
> 
> Yeah. I don't know to what extent this has already been litigated - I
> suspect not a great deal, so any court case on this would probably be
> fairly lengthy. The "day in court" thing I alluded to was more about the
> confusion Paul originally raised, about what the law allows and then
> what can be overridden by EULAs. I guess many here would hope that EULAs
> don't count for an awful lot, and that the right to reverse engineer is
> protectable. But, these days, who knows?

Only one way to find out ;-)

-- 
ian <address@hidden>