The business model works best for companies who need to opensource tools. So, Yahoo will contribute to freebsd, google to python, mountbatten to Joomla! (just to name a few random samples ;-)
The Joomla! foundation is a not for profit, however, they have created one of the most popular CMS systems in the world. So, there is no businessmodel for Joomla! Inc, as it is just non-existent. There is a business model for all the individuals working on the core. I guess their consultancy fees are just slightly higher than the ones paid in the Kampala market. They bring their toolbox (Joomla) to a job, and start hacking a website. Who would do better than they do? So, they get the highest fee. And in the time that they are not flying across the globe presenting Joomla! 1.5, they actually write code. Sounds like a nice individual business model to me. The business models for companies with an opensource package is a bit similar. Who would you want to buy service of? Canonical, MySQL, eh, Sun, Alfresco, etc. It seems to be worth something to be the maintainer of a big open source project. Where the opensource market is definitly weaker is in niches, like yours. Where specialized software is required, opensource doesnt seem to get a real foothold. Wether that be ERP, SMSC's or other small markets, it seems much harder. Apparently open source needs volume. my 2 cents. On Tuesday 05 February 2008 13:03:05 P. A. Bagyenda wrote: > Bait no doubt :-) > > My 'issues' are different. Apart from business models being few and > successes, in truth, even fewer, there is the small matter of the > largely non-existent community participation that is trumpeted as one > of the key advantages of Open Source. What is the magnitude in real > terms? I mean what percentage of 'participants' in these projects > really add value? That to me is one of the biggest disappointments. > That the vast majority, even when they could do otherwise, are content > to merely consume. I don't see any new Linuxes, or GCCs, or VIs, or > Mozillas... Surely it can't be that we've run tools to (re-)create as > open source, can it? > > Time to get off the high horse. PostgreSQL benchmarks: very > interesting. > > > P. > > On Feb 05, 2008, at 11:05, Ernest - (AfriNIC) wrote: > > > P. A. Bagyenda wrote thus on 2/5/08 11:02 AM: > > > > > > Just when one is starting to lose one's faith in this > > > whole Open Source religion > > > > Why lose interest? Open-source is becoming a perfectly lucrative > > business. > > > > > > Hatch an idea, get the community involved to perfect it, sell it for > > billions of USD to the competition and go buy yourself a villa in > > hawaai. > > > > Try it with your butterfly, parlix and zorilla - you may never need > > to code again Paul ;) ! > > > > eb > > _______________________________________________ > > LUG mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug > > %LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ > > > > The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them > > (including attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible > > for them in any way. > > --------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > LUG mailing list > [email protected] > http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug > %LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ > > The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way. > --------------------------------------- > > -- rgds, Reinier Battenberg Director Mountbatten Ltd. +256 782 801 749 www.mountbatten.net _______________________________________________ LUG mailing list [email protected] http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug %LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way. ---------------------------------------
