Re: Development process in the Ada community

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

Ted Dennison wrote in message
<4519e058.0204180739.4cbea611@posting.google.com>...
>"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message
news:<ubrt5mbbdrtk10@corp.supernews.com>...

>> You may even be able to talk me to widening that more;
>> the primary reason for the "non-commercial" restriction is to prevent
>> people from selling the Introductory version itself (or enhancements
of
>> it), not to prevent people from using it in a commercial environment.
We
>> could find any words that covered the one that didn't cover the
other,
>> or get so complicated as to be impossible to understand. Finally we
>> decided to use a variation on Aonix's ObjectAda license.
>
>I guess it depends on exactly what kind of behavior you want to
>prevent.

The most important concern is having people sell versions of Claw which
really are just the Introductory version. People often get confused
between the Introductory version and the Full version. That was a
significant problem for us with the Demo compilers that we sold for $30
(media and shipping costs) back in the early days (mid-80s). People
complained that they were a toy. Duh! But that "toy" reputation was hard
to shake. We need to avoid a repeat.

A secondary concern is someone using the Introductory Claw to compete
with us (presumably by implementing some of the missing classes). But
that probably isn't a real problem; the Introductory Claw contains about
1/3 of the SLOC of the Full Claw (I have been keeping this as an
invariant, so each new Introductory Claw is enhanced). So, to truely
compete with us, someone would have to (at least) do 30% of the work put
in on Claw -- which would be a pretty big job.

>If you were to use the GMGPL, then anyone who tried to resell Claw
>(Introductory) would have to compete with thier customer's ability to
>download it for free from you or someone else, and they could not
>prohibit further redistribution. They can't change the license. Given
>that, it would be tough to justify charging significantly more than
>media costs. It could be argued that such people would be actually
>doing you guys a favor by helping to expose your introductory version
>to more users, without you having to go through the expense of making
>hard copies and mailing them yourself. The worst I can see happening
>from your perspective is that its use might take off, and development
>might outstrip that of your full version.


Right, that might work.

>If you were to use the GPL (but license the full version however you
>want, you can do that since its your copyright), then anyone who uses
>the introductory version would have to GPL their program. This would
>still allow for "non-commercial use" like the current license does,
>but it would also allow for commercial use in GPL programs, and more
>importantly use in GPL programs themselves. Again, people could
>redistribute and charge for it, but it would have to be under the GPL.
>You could even release the *full* version this way, and make a
>non-GPL-infecting license one of the things that you are selling (in
>addition to support) to customers. The worst that I could see happen
>here is that some folks might ignore the license and use the GPL CLAW
>in non-GPL programs, which would require lawyers to get involved.


That is also an interesting idea.

>From my perspective, I'd prefer to see you folks take the first tack.
>(I'd actually prefer to see you release the full Claw as GMGPL, with
>paid versions from RR getting media and support, but we've been over
>that already). But its your perspective that matters. What precisely
>worries you about doing either of these?


Well, I have a philosophical objection to the GPL (or, more accurately,
Open Source). I believe programmers have an ethical obligation to stand
behind their programming. There are exceptions, of course (if the
software was stolen, used in a dangerous or illegal way, the software is
for obsolete or unobtainable equipment, or the owner of the software
fired the programmer), but in general, software should be fixed if
practical in a timely fashion. The problem is that the only Open Source
business model that works requires charging for fixes. To make that
work, it is necessary to provide (much) better service to paid
customers, often meaning delaying the availability of public fixes. And
I find that mildy distrubing.

OTOH, I'm plenty aware that the world has changed. Charging for support
has been an important part of RR's business for years. The main problem
(personally) is that I have a hard time delaying the support for
unsupported customers. I've actually tried to figure out how to delay
seeing messages on the Claw mailing list for a couple of days, simply to
facilitate that. (This is the same reason I rarely buy a newspaper --
because I feel compelled to read it all -- a time investment I can't
make.)

So, I'll seriously consider your suggestions. Either may work
sufficiently well to adopt.

                    Randy Brukardt.