Post by Tim Penrose on Nov 23, 2005 15:34:24 GMT -5
To reiterate what I have said prior:
1) I may release some portion of the source code as open source, but I don’t intend to release EVERYTHING as open source. I MOST DEFINITELY WILL publish any and all file-formats. I will be actively seeking collaborators to synergize with.
2) There will always be a free version available. I intend to release a commercial enterprise-level application, so I think an active user-base will not hurt my ability to sell the commercial version, and I think it will actually benefit my commercial sales. I will probably offer the initial version(s) as freeware. My current thoughts are that I will offer the commercial version with support and 1 year worth of free upgrades. Free versions will slowly gain functionality from the commercial version as I’m able to do so, with no guarantees which features will (and won’t) make it into the free version. I can say that the free version will quickly become more powerful than what KeyNote is and more powerful than KeyNote 2.0 would have been based on the specifications. But that is subjective, since I do not currently intend to implement some features of KeyNote 2.0 .
PROS and CONS of Open Source;
Perhaps the CONS are more appropriately named “fears and concerns”. I don’t make any claims of inferiority when it comes to Open Source software. Novo Libera already contains a number of open source components, including Firebird, SharpHSQL, FamFam Icons (creative commons license), and more.
My understanding is that most open source software companies make money off of service and support. I also believe that the ultimate aspiration of all software is to be transparent. In an ideal world (from the prospective of a software developer), software enables the user to simply ask the software to perform a task as one would ask a butler or maid. In this ideal world, there is no concept of configuration/administration/troubleshooting/etc. Perhaps it is impossible to offer the “ideal” for which I aspire, but I do believe much of this ideal can be preserved by offering a user-interface that appears in granular layers and exposes itself to the user as is necessary, and in intuitive ways. To me, this is the best form of user-empowerment.
If one reads the GNU licensing and philosophy doctrines, user-empowerment is at the core of their purpose as well. So this is the irony; If I aspire to eliminate the need for service/support, then success means I’ve eliminated service/support as a possible source of income. If I am Open Source, then I’ve eliminated commercial-sales as a possible source of income. See the dillema? So which is better; Having useable, intuitive software with an up-front usage cost, or having free software that necessitates either a) a service contract, or b) a more-costly in-house investment in expertise?
The crux of the problem is that the world has yet to establish a fair precedent for the purchasing/bartering of products for which revenue is not directly tied to service. Yet the world is continually adopting more businesses that function in this manner. Software is just one example of this; If I distribute software online, then I have a mostly-fixed development cost. My cost to sell my product to 1,000,000 users is nearly the same as my cost to sell to 10 users (assuming the software doesn’t need per-user service). Yet I desire compensation for the labor that I’ve done. Other examples of businesses that function this way are; musicians (assuming revenue tied to record sales), motion-picture actors, and sports professionals. In the US, it is not unusual for a professional athlete to receive 20 million dollars in annual salary. This is because no extra work is done if there are 10 extra people in the stadium or 10 extra people watching it on television, yet there is additional revenue. It has nothing to do with fair, considering that professional teachers labor, on average, more hours than professional athletes, yet receive 1/400th or less of the wage.
Its not that these types of businesses are not legitimate, and direct-service businesses ARE. A software developer labors to provide a solution to an unfulfilled need in exchange for compensation.
So how do I make it fair? The only way to do that is to voluntarily tie my revenue to my services in the most-fair way that I can. That is how I came to the conclusion that I should phase functional from the commercial version to the freeware version after I have received reasonable compensation for my labors. Even this isn’t fair because the user does not decide the compensation. It is is aggregated across all users. Every developer has a different idea of what is fair compensation. There are legitimate reasons why the compensation should be higher than for other occupations , such as the associated risks (spending 1 year developing something for which there may be no compensation), the penalty interest paid as a result of delayed earnings, etc.
SUMMARY -
The task: Tie software-development revenue directly to the legitimate labor-effort performed (Oh, I’m going to get flamed for this, but I have to qualify “legitimate”. First I will say that there are many good, legitimate, well-intentioned open-source software companies. I have tremendous respect for open source communities and I’m grateful to have them and I’m proud to participate. NOW, legitimate is stated as opposed to illegitimate labor-efforts that some (NOT all) open source companies create by making their software artificially difficult so as to necessitate the purchase of service-contracts).
The reward: Not only will you tremendously help me resolve this issue for Novo Libera, but you will become internationally renown for your brilliance (I am absolutely serious here…).
Thanks for reading and I look forward to hearing comments,
Tim
1) I may release some portion of the source code as open source, but I don’t intend to release EVERYTHING as open source. I MOST DEFINITELY WILL publish any and all file-formats. I will be actively seeking collaborators to synergize with.
2) There will always be a free version available. I intend to release a commercial enterprise-level application, so I think an active user-base will not hurt my ability to sell the commercial version, and I think it will actually benefit my commercial sales. I will probably offer the initial version(s) as freeware. My current thoughts are that I will offer the commercial version with support and 1 year worth of free upgrades. Free versions will slowly gain functionality from the commercial version as I’m able to do so, with no guarantees which features will (and won’t) make it into the free version. I can say that the free version will quickly become more powerful than what KeyNote is and more powerful than KeyNote 2.0 would have been based on the specifications. But that is subjective, since I do not currently intend to implement some features of KeyNote 2.0 .
PROS and CONS of Open Source;
Perhaps the CONS are more appropriately named “fears and concerns”. I don’t make any claims of inferiority when it comes to Open Source software. Novo Libera already contains a number of open source components, including Firebird, SharpHSQL, FamFam Icons (creative commons license), and more.
My understanding is that most open source software companies make money off of service and support. I also believe that the ultimate aspiration of all software is to be transparent. In an ideal world (from the prospective of a software developer), software enables the user to simply ask the software to perform a task as one would ask a butler or maid. In this ideal world, there is no concept of configuration/administration/troubleshooting/etc. Perhaps it is impossible to offer the “ideal” for which I aspire, but I do believe much of this ideal can be preserved by offering a user-interface that appears in granular layers and exposes itself to the user as is necessary, and in intuitive ways. To me, this is the best form of user-empowerment.
If one reads the GNU licensing and philosophy doctrines, user-empowerment is at the core of their purpose as well. So this is the irony; If I aspire to eliminate the need for service/support, then success means I’ve eliminated service/support as a possible source of income. If I am Open Source, then I’ve eliminated commercial-sales as a possible source of income. See the dillema? So which is better; Having useable, intuitive software with an up-front usage cost, or having free software that necessitates either a) a service contract, or b) a more-costly in-house investment in expertise?
The crux of the problem is that the world has yet to establish a fair precedent for the purchasing/bartering of products for which revenue is not directly tied to service. Yet the world is continually adopting more businesses that function in this manner. Software is just one example of this; If I distribute software online, then I have a mostly-fixed development cost. My cost to sell my product to 1,000,000 users is nearly the same as my cost to sell to 10 users (assuming the software doesn’t need per-user service). Yet I desire compensation for the labor that I’ve done. Other examples of businesses that function this way are; musicians (assuming revenue tied to record sales), motion-picture actors, and sports professionals. In the US, it is not unusual for a professional athlete to receive 20 million dollars in annual salary. This is because no extra work is done if there are 10 extra people in the stadium or 10 extra people watching it on television, yet there is additional revenue. It has nothing to do with fair, considering that professional teachers labor, on average, more hours than professional athletes, yet receive 1/400th or less of the wage.
Its not that these types of businesses are not legitimate, and direct-service businesses ARE. A software developer labors to provide a solution to an unfulfilled need in exchange for compensation.
So how do I make it fair? The only way to do that is to voluntarily tie my revenue to my services in the most-fair way that I can. That is how I came to the conclusion that I should phase functional from the commercial version to the freeware version after I have received reasonable compensation for my labors. Even this isn’t fair because the user does not decide the compensation. It is is aggregated across all users. Every developer has a different idea of what is fair compensation. There are legitimate reasons why the compensation should be higher than for other occupations , such as the associated risks (spending 1 year developing something for which there may be no compensation), the penalty interest paid as a result of delayed earnings, etc.
SUMMARY -
The task: Tie software-development revenue directly to the legitimate labor-effort performed (Oh, I’m going to get flamed for this, but I have to qualify “legitimate”. First I will say that there are many good, legitimate, well-intentioned open-source software companies. I have tremendous respect for open source communities and I’m grateful to have them and I’m proud to participate. NOW, legitimate is stated as opposed to illegitimate labor-efforts that some (NOT all) open source companies create by making their software artificially difficult so as to necessitate the purchase of service-contracts).
The reward: Not only will you tremendously help me resolve this issue for Novo Libera, but you will become internationally renown for your brilliance (I am absolutely serious here…).
Thanks for reading and I look forward to hearing comments,
Tim
, but here goes what i think: