Re: [Fsfe-uk] Funding Open Source

[ian]

On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 07:30, Alex Hudson wrote:

> I think this type os system should only be viewed as a way forward for
> those pieces of software which are not commercially viable. 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. I am basically and
education solutions provider so I need say an open source database
configured in a particular way. If I think having it is going to
increase my ability to sell systems I'm going to look for someone to
generate that software and I am going to look for ways of funding it.
I'm already doing just that - just paid Birmingham Uni CS dept 3 grand
for an initial planning exercise and meet with them on 20th to discuss a
way forward. So ok, its small scale and only a start. If you want bigger
scale look at Red Hat or OpenOffice.org. Ok, OO.o development is largely
Sun employees, but it could just as easily be contracted out and I doubt
that the SO/OO.o divide will turn out to be that important to Sun in the
long term. Sun save money from licensing costs on their own desktops and
they can make their other products more competitive at least until a
point where everyone is using OO.o anyway. In principle any large
company could commission software in this way especially if its based on
existing code, it will be a lot less expensive to produce.

> > In normal circumstances, the IP and copyright and licencing conditions
> > would become those of the person paying the money. However, in free
> > software, the IP and copyright are normally those of the author(s) and
> > licenced how they see fit (typically, GPL or LGPL).
> 
> I'm afraid I don't share your assessment - ownership of copyright does
> not vary by licensing scheme, as a rule. I guess what you mean is that
> most commercial software is work-for-hire (and hence owned by a
> company), and much free softare is developed by individuals (and hence
> owned by them). There would be nothing stopping those individuals
> starting a company, and transferring the rights to it though - furhther,
> there would probably be no expection/reason for rights transfer either.

The incentive to use the GPL is that fact you can save money by using
other people's work as a starting point. In my database example, I
definitely don't have to write an SQL database engine, all I need is
simpler integration with OO.o and better reporting. That is a lot less
expensive to do and I'm not really interested in trying to sell software
as such, I want something that does everything the customer wants to do
of which software is only one element.

> > I was not able to implement them for a variety of reasons, the main one
> > was that as the code was as a result of breaking the original licence
> > conditions, it would make the derived code a threat to the package.
> 
> 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.

> > It certainly is a minefield, but I'm sure the obstacles can be shoved
> > out of the way and this really worthwhile project pushed forward. Good
> > luck Neil :-)
> 
> Agreed ;)

All business is a minefield. Don't expect to be in business and take no
risks. Key is to take calculated ones that put the odds in your favour.
Its like playing Black Jack. It helps if you understand the game and can
remember all the cards and the statistics.

-- 
ian <address@hidden>