Makes interesting reading. -sdg- -------- Forwarded Message -------- > From: Miguel de Icaza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Carlos Perellà MarÃn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Free software business models (was: Evolution copyright > assignment: Storm in a teacup) > Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:42:30 -0400 > Richard said: > > > Have you ever think that without that document perhaps they would never > > released evolution as GPL software? or even worse, Ximian would never > > developed it. > > > > There was no real possibility of this, because Ximian was founded by > > free software developers with the specific aim of developing free > > software. And at first it developed only free software. > > > > Ximian's practice of releasing proprietary software came later, after > > Ximian accepted outside investment from people who had no particular > > commitment to free software. In other words, it was ambushed by the > > VC. This has happened to many free software companies: it is one of > > the main dangers that they face. > > No, we were not ambushed by the VCs. > > We wanted a company that developed and created software, not a company > that only did support and services. I am not a services person I am a > software developer. My desire remains firmly to create a completely > free operating environment, and one that is not year light away from > the commercial offerings and one that happens relatively quickly. > > The policies that Ximian designed were a combination of balancing our > commitment with free software and having to find a way to create a self > sustaining company that would allow us to continue building software. > > I still feel that doing a combination of free and proprietary software > is a good way of moving forward. You see this on Red Hat's services > model, you see this with projects like Mono, Evolution, Qt and Berkeley > DB. > > I believed as much as the next person on the free software business > mantras: > > `People will build the software on their own' > > `Free software just happens magically' > > `People do not need to be paid' > > `Software will get written because it will bother someone > enough that it will happen' > > `People will choose us for support and services because we know the > code base better' > > `Freedom matter the most to all developers and users' > > And although all of the above have an element of truth, they are only a > piece in the puzzle. I would say that neither Nat nor myself wanted to > sit around for twenty years for the `magic wand' to sort things out. > > Instead we came up with some compromises that we felt were appropriate > to create a business that would develop free software. That would > accelerate the creation of key missing pieces on the desktop; would > productize what we felt was important for the adoption of free software > and at the same time keep the company running and create enough value > that it would bring a return to our stock holders. > > The reality is more complex than the one-liners and the feedback loops > systems that we all engage in the free software world. > > We might not have designed the best strategy for the acceleration of > the adoption and development of free software, but we tried one path, > and we were reasonably happy with it. > > Today, if I someone asks me about creating a company that will *build* > software, I make sure that they understand that services and support is > not going to sustain that business, at least not in my experience. > > But the best way of arguing my points is to go and create new free > software companies and show the world how your model can work. We did > not find the silver bullet for a pure 100% free software company, in > the meantime we continue to develop a large volume of free software. > > The dynamics have changed by Novell's acquisitions of Ximian and SUSE. > Novell has a big channel and a support and services organization that > can bring in revenue for the free software that Ximian and SUSE > provide. Today the world is larger and large companies are working > together in joint projects: from Apache, to OpenOffice, to Mozilla, to > Evolution to the Linux kernel and they sell other kinds of services. > > Most of the new free software being developed today is -in my > impression- the response from customer needs on large deployments: fix, > patch, improve features that are needed to make a Linux sale happen. > Linux sales that typically have services and support dollars attached > to it. > > Such opportunities did not exist for Ximian and probably do not exist > for most free software startups today. > > In short, for making a living, if you are happy as a consultant doing > very limited software development, pure free software companies are > possible. > > If on the other hand, you are mostly interested in creating new > software on a short period of time, I would advise a combination of > free and proprietary software. > > I would love to be proved wrong, but so far there is no standard > answer, no magic recipe. There is no simple business model for free > software and it will continue to be an extremely risky strategy for > investment. > > Miguel. > _______________________________________________ > foundation-list mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > > -- Sayamindu Dasgupta (ààààààààà àààààààà) [http://sayamindu.randomink.org/ramblings]
-- To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body "unsubscribe ilug-cal" and an empty subject line. FAQ: http://www.ilug-cal.org/node.php?id=3
