From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10a146,243844de28aa7187 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac39a12d5faf5b14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 10ed7b,243844de28aa7187 X-Google-Attributes: gid10ed7b,public X-Google-Thread: 11232c,992bfa9d3803bf5b X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-20 18:44:13 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,misc.misc,comp.lang.java.programmer,talk.bizarre Subject: Re: How Open Source software developers pay the bills, from within a successful such operation (was): Open Source: in conflict with the development process in the Ada community? Date: 20 Apr 2002 18:44:12 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0204201744.587dfec7@posting.google.com> References: <3CB94312.5040802@snafu.de> <4519e058.0204150645.62003096@posting.google.com> <3CBCEB15.E104D1F5@adaworks.com> <35c5c360dfe83cb34ea9648445bd0e95.48257@mygate.mailgate.org> <5ee5b646.0204190620.1902ede@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1019353452 19918 127.0.0.1 (21 Apr 2002 01:44:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Apr 2002 01:44:12 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22847 misc.misc:6743 comp.lang.java.programmer:148627 talk.bizarre:22025 Date: 2002-04-21T01:44:12+00:00 List-Id: "Kent Paul Dolan" wrote in message news:... > Thanks extremely much for that economics lesson, Robert. > I was about to frame as a query a completely wrongheaded > guess at how open source folks get paid a living wage. As I said earlier, the issue is not really open source per se but rather the issue is whether companies can successfully use licenses that convey considerable rights to customers, including rights to free use, modification and redistribution (collectively such licenses have been referred to as Free Software licenses). I have explained how this model works well for Ada Core Technologies and its customers. I should mention one more important aspect of this model (again remember I am wearing my ACT hat :-) The way our support works is that people purchase a copy of GNAT Pro with support for a year. Then, at their option they can renew this support, which includes getting all the updated latest versions of GNAT Pro. Will they renew their support? In practice almost all our customers do renew. They certainly don't have to, they can continue to use the version of the compiler they have (since the license gives them this right, and there are certainly no time bombs or anything else like that which would prevent that). The answer is simple, they will renew if they find a) that development of GNAT Pro is continuing and valuable new features are being added, so that it is worth getting the latest versions. b) that the support we provide is valuable Now remember that ACT is a commercial company, we definitely want customers to renew. That means we have a very significant financial incentive to deliver on both points a) and b) above. This keeps us running fast. Unlike a proprietary software company that can use restrictive licenses to keep its customer base captive, we can't just stop development, degrade support, and sit back and milk the customer base, since that would be financially disadvantageous to us (and at the risk of sounding like General Motors, we think that the continued health of ACT is an important element in the continued success and usage of Ada, which we definitely want to encourage!) Now of course I am not saying that all proprietary companies provide poor support, or fail to keep up a strong development program, but I like the fact that in our model, our interests are aligned with those of our customers both philosphically and commercially. Now, an interesting question, could you use this model for all software, or at least let's say other software? Well I can't answer that, but I do remember my brother saying when he was running DISC (Dewar Information Systems Corporation) and had over a hundred people working for him, that he found it annoying that he could only pay Microsoft $300 for a C compiler. He said "I would far rather pay 10 or 20 times that, and get a corresponding better product with better support, since I am betting my company on the integrity of this product". Hobbyists and students often evaluate software purely on the basis of whether it does what they personally need. They would not appear to be customers for the kind of full-service support that is part of this model. On the other hand, not much of the software industry depends on the money spent by students and hobbyists on software, and it seems quite reasonable to let them get hold of the software they need with no support and no fees (in practice such communities tend to regard it as legitimate to trade software regardless of licensing conditions). I like the model of unsupported public versions for meeting this need because I think it realistically addresses this segment. But when it comes to industrial use, I don't think most companies want to rely on downloaded software with no support. Suppose I came up with a really good piece of presentation software that competed effectively with Power Point? Could I sell this with a non-restrictive license. I think the answer is that it depends on the price. Power Point itself is remarkably expensive, and Microsoft's total income from this product exceeds the cost of producing it by some enormous factor. I concede that if you think this kind of discrepancy is reasonable, then it's hard to sustain without restrictive licensing, but I think if you sold such a product for a reasonable price, you could definitely succeed. I know that for my own usage, I have no problem in paying reasonable prices for software that I need to rely on. What's the definition of reasonable? For me it is that the company is making a reasonable profit but not an excessive one. I think software producers should be able to make a good living, but I don't see that they have to get super rich. Obviously if I get more extensive support I expect to pay more so I need to select a product whose level of support meets my needs. Ada Core Technologies has a quite clear philosophy of providing very extensive high level support. That's not cheap, but that's the market segment we have chosen to address, because typically Ada is used in large scale critical systems where this level of support is needed. Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies