Curiouser and Curiouser!

Curiouser and Curiouser! on licensing http://matt.blogs.it/ RSS feed for topic licensing Copyright 2006 Matt Mower Squib/0.1 self@mattmower.com self@mattmower.com en-gb liveTopics licensing. It's getting thorny Tue, 20 Aug 2002 12:27:13 +0100 I've been thinking about licensing and how it applies to my business, to my plans for making my living. I've used free software and appreciated it.  I've bought commerical software and been happy to do so.  I am happy to buy reasonably priced software - when I have the money.  I don't expect, or even want, all software to be free.  Now, for the first time, I am releasing software in the context of my own business, making a living.  It colours things. My plans for liveTopics means that it will, increasingly, be relevant in an organizational context.  I anticipate a point where I could have commercial and non-commercial customers.  I want to license liveTopics appropriately but my head is getting very sore trying to work that out. I need help.   http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000357.html More on licensing Tue, 20 Aug 2002 12:33:56 +0100 Maybe I should just GPL liveTopics and avoid the subject of money altogether. Is there a way to make a living from software without licensing it when the source is freely available?     http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000360.html More on licensing, closer to a decision Tue, 20 Aug 2002 14:41:26 +0100 Okay I've just read the first document that is really convincing.  It's by the guys behind Zope and discusses in detail their reasons for going open source.  This is the first concrete business-plan backed reasoning I've come across and it makes for compelling reading.  Just need to go check that Zope are still in business! Here are the important points: <UL> <LI> Going open source will increase our user base by a factor of 100 within three months. Wider brand and stronger identity leads to more consulting and increased valuation on our company. <LI> Open source gives rock solid, battle-tested, bulletproof software on more platforms and with more capabilities than closed source, thus increasing the value of our consulting. <LI> Fostering a community creates an army of messengers, which is pretty effective marketing. <LI> This is not the last innovation we'll make. <LI> In the status quo, the value of packaging the software as a product would approach zero, as we had zero market penetration. What is the value of a killer product with few users? The cost to enter the established web application server market was going to be prohibitive. <LI> The investment grows us into a larger, more profitable company, one that can make a credible push to create a platform via open source. Since our consulting is only on the platform, a strong platform is imperative. <LI> Open source makes the value of our ideas more apparent, thus the perceived value of the company is apparent. <LI> Our architecture is "safer" for consulting customers. With thousands of people using it, the software is far less marginal. The customer is able to fix things themselves or reasonably find someone to do it for them. Finally, the software will "exist forever". <LI> Dramatically increasing the base of users and sites using it gives us a tremendous boost in "legitimacy". <LI> The exit plan isn't about the golden eggs (the intellectual property) laid last year. It is about the golden goose and tomorrow's golden eggs. The shelf life of eggs these days is shrinking dramatically, and the value of an egg that no one knows about is tiny. Give the eggs away as a testament to the value of the goose and a prediction of eggs to come. <LI> The community can work with us to dramatically increase the pace of innovation and responsiveness to new technical trends, such as XML and WebDAV. <LI> Ride the coattails of the nascent Open Source community and its established channels such as RedHat. OSS has a certain buzz that is greater than its real customer-closing value, but this buzz is getting hot. Moving aggressively towards Open Source can make us a category killer for the web application server market segment. <LI> We believe like hell in what we're doing. Others believe in us as well. We should follow our instincts.</LI></UL> Some of these issues are obviously more important to a company having taken investment with it's eye on a future IPO but I think they are all good, important points.  Those that seem most applicable (and inherently good) to me I've marked in red.   They seem very persuasive. One implication is that the direction of my company will be entirely towards VAR services & consulting.  I shall be abandoning the idea of making money from software licenses (for my own software). Something to think about... http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000373.html More on licensing for liveTopics Tue, 20 Aug 2002 23:18:09 +0100 Here's how I'm leaning: <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> I make liveTopics free software issued under the GPL. </BLOCKQUOTE> I can see the arguments for and against commercial licenses for the software.  But like the Zope guys I have weigh up how much license revenue I'm actually likely to generate versus the inertia that having to pay could generate.  I'm hoping to build a reputation in the KM/klogging space and liveTopics if widely accepted could be a part of that.  I also want to take liveTopics into corporate blogging directories, topic-maps, XTM, and visualization.  I want to take it into group/shared-blogging.  I want lots of you to come along for the ride. So I think it's real values to me are: <UL> <LI>reputation</LI> <LI>a lead-in to other services</LI> <LI>the vision</LI></UL> The other services could be support, as well as more general KM/klogging consultancy or integration work. Am I making sense?  I guess we'll know if I end up starving and homeless in 6 months time! http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000400.html liveTopics license Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:10:08 +0100 <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0108194/2002/08/21.html#a279">More on licensing for liveTopics</A>. <BLOCKQUOTE>[<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/">Curiouser and curiouser!</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> I've gotta say I really love watching this process. One point of potential revenue could very well be 'corporate consulting' i.e. installation and integration. People aren't going to know what to do with liveTopics (or blogging directories, topic-maps, XTM & visualization for that matter) without being pitched and well trained, and even then it's going to be difficult for them to wrap their head around the concept enough to drop it into their IT culture effectively. It's much easier from that perspective to hire the people who wrote it to come in, train IT in the installation process (or actually provide the service) and talk with the user base to bring them up to speed and show them some of the possibilities and how it "affects their day." If liveTopics is (or is going to be) that robust I think you should have no particular difficulty generating a revenue stream through such ancillary services. [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0108194/">The Universal Church Of Cosmic Uncertainty</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » Thanks for the perspective.  That's kinda what I'm looking for right now.  Well either that or "You're mad!  Mad! Mad! Mad!" I guess this will become one of those experiments that my life has now become. Exciting!</BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000419.html Not quite the last word on licensing Fri, 23 Aug 2002 22:54:09 +0100 Not quite the last word on licensing. I've been speaking to Mark Paschal about his choice of the BSD license for Stapler.  Mark's reasons for open sourcing Stapler may, fundamentally, be more altruistic than mine but having decided to do it (open source liveTopics) I want to do it properly. They key difference as Mark explains it is that under the GPL liveTopics could not be integrated into Radio, because Radio is not itself GPL compatible.  Indeed Mark couldn't incorporate any functionality from liveTopics into Stapler (for example) without breaking the license.  Is that what I intended?  I'm actually wondering now whether whether it would be breaking my own license to distribute Radio & liveTopics to a customer?  Would I have to require a separate download & install step to comply? Since I don't think I can go back and do this again I need to get it right.  Some stuff I need to understand:  Am I bound by my own license?  Can I re-issue liveTopics later with a different license?  Can I grant exceptions to the GPL?  If so, what happens when an exception is contradictory to the GPL? Does anyone else want to weigh in on the best license to use?   [please!] http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000453.html Licensing: My brain hurts Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:28:28 +0100 Here's something I don't understand: <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> My rights as the author and copyright holder of a piece of software I have written.</BLOCKQUOTE> I just don't understand them.  And, hence, I do not understand what I may or may not be giving away.  Example: If I publish a program under the GPL am I still the owner of the software?  In what sense? I've had conflicting opinions about the merits of going open source for my liveTopics program.  Before I make a final decision I want to really understand what I am doing either way and what I am, potentially, giving up. Example scenario: <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> liveTopics 1.0 is published as an open source program under the GPL.   For whatever reason though the project does not thrive.  In the mean time I see commercial possibilities for the project with further significant development effort.  I create version 2.0 of liveTopics. Am I bound by my own license to release it under the GPL?  Or do I have the right, as the owner, to decide I want to use a different license?</BLOCKQUOTE> I'd really love someone to help me answer these kind of questions, it's frazzling my brain trying to understand this stuff. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000476.html liveTopics license Thu, 05 Sep 2002 22:52:57 +0100 <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0104487/2002/09/05.html#a288">Radio Tools Licensing</A>. <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/">Matt</A> is looking for the perfect license model for his Radio tool. If you want to get your hands on <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/outlines/liveTopics.html">liveTopics 1.0</A> before Hell freezes, you'd better join the discussion at <A href="http://www.quicktopic.com/16/H/tVkeJYmT2Wr/p-1.-1">http://www.quicktopic.com/16/H/tVkeJYmT2Wr/p-1.-1</A> and help Matt make up his mind fast. [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0104487/2002/09/05.html#a288" target=_blank>read more</A>] [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0104487/">s l a m</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » Oh how I wish Marc was being unkind with that "Hell freezes over" remark :-)</BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000495.html 2nd draft of liveTopics license posted Mon, 09 Sep 2002 21:15:24 +0100 I've posted a <A href="http://www.quicktopic.com/16/D/FtsR9n38BJYc4.html">2nd draft</A> of the proposed "free for personal use" liveTopics license agreement.  It's modelled philosophically after the BitKeeper license.  Hopefully the text is now clearer.  I'm really looking for comments/criticisms to surface now so that I can get this knocked out soon. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000519.html 3rd draft of the license Tue, 10 Sep 2002 21:12:57 +0100 I've posted the 3rd draft of the liveTopics license <A href="http://www.quicktopic.com/16/D/saTXuaJkyNZP.html">here</A> for review.  It's nearly done I just need to know that people are comfortable with section 3 and what, if anything, I need to go in section 5.  The end is in sight (which is good because I've done a fair bit of work that I want to release). http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000532.html