RE: ADCL

["Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." <rleif@rleif.com>]

From: Bob Leif
To: Marin David Condic et al.
Of course, I agree. There are several interesting differences between
software and other copyrightable items. Object-oriented design and large
libraries can result in a product using only a small amount of a developer's
creation. The royalties should be based on what is linked. Run-time binding
is beyond me. One developer can extend another's work including creation of
a new body for an old specification. What is the relative worth of the
specification and body? These questions require input.

However, the simplest argument for the ADCL is that something, even if it is
only a possibility, is better than nothing. Since the ADCL requires little
or no cash investment from a developer who reuses another developer's code,
it is a better model for commercial software development then one where
commercial development requires significant upfront costs. The owners of ACT
have every right to disagree with me and quite possible could be correct in
their market, which is a compiler. Lastly, since several members of the Ada
community were educated as chemists, ADCL reduces the potential energy
barrier and thus catalyzes commercialization of Ada.

-----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: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 2:42 PM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: ADCL


There are obviously issues WRT just how much an independent developer should
share in the revenue of a given product. If I build a custom one-off
software product and 10% of the code is yours, maybe that number should be
10% of the gross sale. If I build the next Great American Operating System
and 10% of the code is yours, but I'm retailing this on the order of $29.95
a box to 50,000,000 users, giving you 10% of that gross sale is simply not
going to happen. At that level, it quickly becomes more cost effective for
me to reverse-engineer anything you contributed and get you out of the loop.

For that reason, I think that there would likely be "volume discounts".
First you have to agree on how to determine the relative percentage of
contribution. From there, you can come to an agreement on percentage of
gross sales or some kind of unit cost for your contribution and discount it
for volume as seems appropriate. This isn't that different from when some
company licenses an RTOS (like VxWorks) for embedding in a commercial
eletronics product. There's a price for Quantity 1 and a different price for
Quantity 100,000.

I would think that just because you were to release something under the ADCL
doesn't mean you aren't free to renegotiate a different deal with any
individual or corporation that has an interest in it. You're saying "Unless
otherwise agreed to, you can use this software free and if you sell it you
owe me $X.XX." You can always work a deal with MassiveHard Software to
license your software for $0.0001/copy included in their product. If some
company wants to use it but doesn't like the terms, they can always contact
you and get different terms.

I don't think developers should price themselves out of business, but it
still seems to me that developers should get *some* piece of the action if
someone commercializes their work & makes money with it. It isn't that
different from book publishing - there is a lot that goes into book sales
besides the author's contribution, but the author gets a cut based on sales.
Is that somehow unfair?

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/


"Al Christians" <alc@PublicPropertySoftware.com> wrote in message
news:3B54ACA5.9E286B04@PublicPropertySoftware.com...
>
> In the market system of contemporary capitalism, factors like shelf
> space, media placement, etc, are very important factors.  Depending
> on the product, maybe much more important than programming language
> and/or developer talent.
>
> If the source code for a wonderful Ada IDE, object database, or XML
> demihetraline hyperflugenator magically appeared on your doorstep
> tomorrow morning, how far are you from a profitable business based
> on that product?  Is it easier or harder to write code or to turn
> code into a profitable business?   IIRC, last time I checked, the
> combined total profits of software companies #2 to #1000 (ranked by
> revenues) was negative.  In most companies, developers are lucky not
> to share in the profits.
>
>
> Al