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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-14 21:07:30 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!opentransit.net!jussieu.fr!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: Ada Developer's Cooperative License (was) Re: Market pressures for more reliable software Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 20:56:10 -0700 Organization: ENST, France Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 992577437 58215 137.194.161.2 (15 Jun 2001 03:57:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 03:57:17 +0000 (UTC) To: Return-Path: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 In-Reply-To: <9gb971$246$1@nh.pace.co.uk> Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.4 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8765 Date: 2001-06-14T20:56:10-07:00 From: Bob Leif To: Marin David Condic et al. I will try to answer your questions. However, yours or others' answers are equally relevant. I definitely do not wish to be the sole author of the final license. 1) The royalties are paid after the supplier of the software is paid. Somewhere between 30 to 90 days after the money from the sale has been received. Traditionally, net at 90 days and some minor discount if the royalties are paid earlier. 2) The royalties are based on the total price paid to the developing organization. If the developing organization distributes directly, they should have a lower rate than if they distribute via intermediates. It also depends on who pays for the advertising. I do believe that the total royalty rate has to be announced upfront by the developing organization. To simplify matters, I will assume that the product is distributed directly by the developing organization and that it does not have a significant advertising budget. I would then guesstemate that the total royalty rate would be on 25% of the net of the sales. Items, such as shipping and sales tax, have to be subtracted first. I should note that I am R&D Vice President of my company and am not one of the individuals who would actually set this rate. Given my assumptions, I can now answer your questions. 1) My (MDC) code (as measured by the ASIS tool) constitutes 10% of the overall product's source code. You price your shrink-wrapped product at $100. You sell 1000 units. a) How much do I get? 100 * 1,000 *0.25 * 0.10 = 2,500. This is based on the assumption that code includes design, testing software, and actual testing. b) When do you write a check to so that I ultimately get paid? 30 to 90 days after receipt of payment from the customer. c) How do I know that you didn't actually sell 10,000 units and are only claiming 1000? This question is totally independent of the proposed royalty scheme. The licenses for my patents include the right to have an accountant audit the licensees' books concerning sales of my products. The Developers' consortium could have this right. 2) You now sell 1,000,000 at $10. (Wholesale or retail?) Do I still get the same percentage even though your costs are now near totally in the manufacture & distribution of the product, not in the engineering of it? Yes, because you are an investor. Others might believe that the royalty rate should decrease. However, in the real world, these sales will require an upgrade. Therefore your relationship with the developing organization must be maintained. However, the developing organization has the right to replace any of your code provided it does not infringe on your copyright. 3) The whole thing depends on basic honesty, relatively low cost to be honest and the fear of how expensive it would be to get caught cheating. Yes! And it would be very expensive if one cheated. The pool of developers would dry up and the authors of the Ada source would loose interest in maintaining it. I essentially agree with your other statements below. The bottom line is that we can use Ada technology to promote Ada and be justly rewarded for our effort. -----Original Message----- From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org [mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org]On Behalf Of Marin David Condic Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 2:10 PM To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Subject: Re: Ada Developer's Cooperative License (was) Re: Market pressures for more reliable software Well, assume for a minute that I write some code under ADCL and make it available on the net. You pick it up and include it in your end product - initially at no charge. My code (as measured by the ASIS tool) constitutes 10% of the overall product's source code. (No need to get into the fact that some code is more valuable than others - no system can be perfect & if it was *really* valuable, people would negotiate their own deals outside of ADCL anyway.) To keep things simple: You price your shrink-wrapped product at $100. You sell 1000 units. a) How much do I get? b) Who do you write a check to so that I ultimately get paid? c) How do I know that you didn't actually sell 10,000 units and are only claiming 1000? Change the scenario a little. You now sell 1,000,000 at $10. (Wholesale or retail?) Do I still get the same percentage even though your costs are now near totally in the manufacture & distribution of the product, not in the engineering of it? You might be making only a modest profit while taking an enormous risk, while I sit back nearly risk free collecting X% of every retail sale? I could imagine where 90% of the code came from ADCL sources and the entrepeneur who pulled it all together only has 10% "glue" code involved - yet is still stuck with all the production, marketing and distribution costs. I suppose some models do exist: Musicians/Recording Artists get some percentage of the sale of the "software" they author & record. It has to sometimes be split among other musicians who contributed in a substantive way to the software being sold. There's ASCAP as the clearinghouse for paying/distributing the fees. The whole thing depends on basic honesty, relatively low cost to be honest and the fear of how expensive it would be to get caught cheating. Another model is how people price out an RTOS like VxWorks or WinCE. Here you're in effect buying the right to embed these things in your product the same as if it were under ADCL (without source, maybe) and you have to pay some sort of fee for each unit. Its a direct relationship between customer and supplier, so no ASCAP-like thing is needed, but at least things like volume discounts could be looked at as a model. I don't think I would demand a *perfect* system for sharing in the success of a software product, but my fear is that if the system is too unjust, costly or difficult, it won't take long for most people to conclude that they'd rather not have anything to do with it. I'd love to have 10% of Linux being my code and have the right to some relative percentage of each unit distributed by Red Hat, et alia, but would they have put any effort into Linux as a commercial endeavor if the costs to be paid to me, et alia, started becoming some major chunk of the overall fees charged? (Maybe there needs to be some sort of "Volume Discount" built into it so that the fees decrease roughly at the same rate that the engineering costs dilute over the production run? Otherwise a company will just swollow the cost of engineering whole - reinventing the wheel - rather than use the resources available under ADCL.) MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." wrote in message news:mailman.992544799.21844.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org... > From: Bob Leif > To: Marin David Condic et al. > > A good first step is to either have a birds of a feather meeting at SIGAda > 2001 or if I am given the opportunity during a workshop on "Creating a > Symbiotic Relationship Between XML and Ada". The software discussed during > this workshop could serve as the basis for future mainstream commercial > products. > > As far as the mechanism is concerned, it is really a simple but imperfect > solution. The first assumption is that the sources for the commercial Ada > programs will be available. The second assumption is that an ASIS > application can be created that calculates the relative contribution of each > developer to a project. The third is that an imperfect, but predictable > objective calculation will be preferred by developers to individual, > expensive optimized negotiations. You may get less money; but, you will not > have to pay a lawyer and perhaps an accountant upfront. The second > assumption has the weakness that we can achieve a consensus on the relative > values of individual types of Ada source. This probably will need to include > some type of arbitration procedure. > > The benefits are that individual software engineers are treated as investors > not, as Karl Marx aptly put it, as wage slaves. The benefit to the > capitalist entrepreneur is that for a small upfront cost, one has the chance > to become rich. I might note from previous business experience that the > capitalist should contribute significantly more than money and not be just a > passive investor. >