Re: Making money on open source, if not by selling _support_, then

[Justin Gombos <rpbkbq.xax.gld@uluv.kbq>]

On 2006-04-13, Larry Kilgallen <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote:
> In article <SLx%f.11892$Q92.6911@trnddc04>, Justin Gombos <rpbkbq.xax.gld@uluv.kbq> writes:
>
> If you don't have that assurance, then you did a bad job of
> reviewing the contract you signed.

Sure, with the closed source route, your degree of support reassurance
is limited by the quality of the contract.  Moreover, even the best of
contracts cannot guarantee the vendor remains in business.  If they
close, your only hope is that they turn over the source code (assuming
your contract had this foresight).  Yet still, they ultimately don't
have to comply with the contract in the end, as the actual
consequences of non-compliance might be preferred.

I've been involved in cases where a support contract was violated.  We
were careful to inject a price control, so the vendor could not
excessively jack up the price of support down the line.  They did so
anyway, because they had no choice.  If they did not overcharge, they
would have lost money due to unforeseen expenses on their end.  We
could have sued, and perhaps drive them out of business, but we were
dealing with diminishing returns at this point.

Had the product been open source, we would have had the option of
simply switching to a better competitor.  It's more favorable to have
natural guarantees than to depend on folks following some artifical
rules (since contractual compliance is optional in a strict sense).
If things go poorly, and you're fortunate enough to be on the right
side of the contract, you're still dependant on favorable litigation
results.

-- 
PM instructions: do a C4esar Ciph3r on my address; retain punctuation.