J
On June 20, 2003, Bob Pawley wrote:
> > If the integrators own the code what's to stop them from charging
> > the client ongoing licensing fees as do all proprietary software
> > vendors?
On June 22, 2003, Greg Goodman (Chiron Consulting) wrote:
> That happens all the time. If the integrator charges licensing fees,
> then he/she *is* (by definition) a proprietary software vendor.
> A lot of integrators do cookie-cutter applications, building the same
> thing only different for a lot of different clients. Over time, the
> integrator amasses a body of expertise and builds a set of tools - or
> a complete application. Typically, the integrator retains the rights
> to the software, and charges each client a one-time non-exclusive
> license for installation, plus consulting fees for installation,
> configuration, customization, training, etc. (Actually, they usually
> just bid the job at some fixed lump sum - you don't necessarily know
> how they arrived at the number - but the software license specifies
> that they retain ownership.) The continuing revenue stream comes, not
> from yearly license fees, but from maintenance and support contracts.
You know, exactly the same would happen if the toolkit were GPL - except that many the integrators would use the same one, rather than each having their own. And because it'd be used by so many more people, it would probably have a breadth few single-integrator toolkits can match.
> When a client-specified customization is generally useful, and
> developed under a contract that lets the integrator re-use the code,
> the enhancements get folded back into the toolkit. (Of course, the
> client has the right to insist that the customization NOT be used
> elsewhere, but he can expect to pay significantly more for it.)
Yup, same with the GPL (both options).
> If a customization is more work than a single client is willing to pay
> for, sometimes a User's Group will band together to fund the work
> jointly.
Yup, same with the GPL.
> And sometimes the integrator just has to develop an enhancement on his
> own nickel to stay competitive.
This one would probably be much less common, but still a possibility.
Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jirib
MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools
> > If the integrators own the code what's to stop them from charging
> > the client ongoing licensing fees as do all proprietary software
> > vendors?
On June 22, 2003, Greg Goodman (Chiron Consulting) wrote:
> That happens all the time. If the integrator charges licensing fees,
> then he/she *is* (by definition) a proprietary software vendor.
> A lot of integrators do cookie-cutter applications, building the same
> thing only different for a lot of different clients. Over time, the
> integrator amasses a body of expertise and builds a set of tools - or
> a complete application. Typically, the integrator retains the rights
> to the software, and charges each client a one-time non-exclusive
> license for installation, plus consulting fees for installation,
> configuration, customization, training, etc. (Actually, they usually
> just bid the job at some fixed lump sum - you don't necessarily know
> how they arrived at the number - but the software license specifies
> that they retain ownership.) The continuing revenue stream comes, not
> from yearly license fees, but from maintenance and support contracts.
You know, exactly the same would happen if the toolkit were GPL - except that many the integrators would use the same one, rather than each having their own. And because it'd be used by so many more people, it would probably have a breadth few single-integrator toolkits can match.
> When a client-specified customization is generally useful, and
> developed under a contract that lets the integrator re-use the code,
> the enhancements get folded back into the toolkit. (Of course, the
> client has the right to insist that the customization NOT be used
> elsewhere, but he can expect to pay significantly more for it.)
Yup, same with the GPL (both options).
> If a customization is more work than a single client is willing to pay
> for, sometimes a User's Group will band together to fund the work
> jointly.
Yup, same with the GPL.
> And sometimes the integrator just has to develop an enhancement on his
> own nickel to stay competitive.
This one would probably be much less common, but still a possibility.
Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jirib
MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools
