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,LOTS_OF_MONEY
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,afb4d45672b1e262
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Making money on open source, if not by selling _support_, then
Date: 13 Apr 2006 16:02:21 -0500
Organization: LJK Software
Message-ID: <hgqKi+hComVC@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <LIednWDbPNgXGbPZRVnysQ@pipex.net>
 <vZWdneJu064bV6zZRVn-tQ@megapath.net> <PJi_f.1717$7Z6.1073@trnddc06>
 <7NOdne-iYtWmIafZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@megapath.net>
 <292bf$443bb4e4$45491254$20549@KNOLOGY.NET> <gbvk1e.7qc.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
 <739b0$443e4f69$45491254$22018@KNOLOGY.NET>
 <MWwbKYS4TpLO@eisner.encompasserve.org> <SLx%f.11892$Q92.6911@trnddc04>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1144962069 26120 192.135.80.34 (13 Apr 2006
 21:01:09 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 21:01:09 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3822
Date: 2006-04-13T16:02:21-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <SLx%f.11892$Q92.6911@trnddc04>, Justin Gombos <rpbkbq.xax.gld@uluv.kbq> writes:
> On 2006-04-13, Larry Kilgallen <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote:
>> In article <739b0$443e4f69$45491254$22018@KNOLOGY.NET>, "Marc A. Criley" <mcNOSPAM@mckae.com> writes:
>>
>>> And this occurs in the proprietary software world as well.  On two
>>> instances in my career a customer pays a vendor to modify their
>>> product in a certain way.  The vendor continues to own the product
>>> in whole, the customer simply now gets a release that does what
>>> they need--
>>
>> and gets assurance that the modifications will continue in the
>> product line.  This is a major improvement to the mainframe model
>> where customers get source to the product but will have to
>> re-integrate local changes into successive versions of the product.
> 
> You get no such assurance with closed proprietary software because you
> are at the mercy of the vendor to provide this (and remain in
> business).

If you don't have that assurance, then you did a bad job of reviewing
the contract you signed.

If the vendor issues no more versions, then you still have the guarantee
I cited (vendor not issueing incompatible versions).