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=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, XPRIO_SHORT_SUBJ autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,828c115241d90eca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-17 22:41:39 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!213.56.195.71!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: ADCL Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:40:29 -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 995434889 44995 137.194.161.2 (18 Jul 2001 05:41:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 05:41:29 +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: <9j2bei$d1p$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:10122 Date: 2001-07-17T22:40:29-07:00 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" 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