Dear Raphael, thank you for the explanation. My point about opencart was not the cost of the extension or their business model, but the ease of finding the extension, together with the documentation that exists for each extension (i.e. multiple screenshots, simple explanation.) This is what comes when there is a chance to make $25 a number of times over - so, yes, then it becomes relevant to discuss the licensing model, as this evidently does impact what is offered, at what price, and whether anyone ever documents anything.
Just to summarise on opencart - many extensions cost very little to develop - perhaps only an hour or two of coding. But if it saves me an hour or more of my time then I am happy to spend $25 - or even $50 for that matter - and evidently, for some of the most popular extensions, many hundreds of people agree with me. The question of whether the choice of AGPL license should prevent this kind of micro-customisation is an open one. Say I create a new feature for the webstore, say even - the shipment tracking feature I described - whereby I can store parameter trackno, together with a courier choice, such that the URL www.courier.com/tracking.asp?id=%s where %s is trackno, so that I can simply link through to a courier's website to see how far my parcel has got yet, and even if the customer has received it - this is not a USD5000 development - but I bet others would be prepared to pay $50 for this simple and useful functionality. Why then can I not publish the code on the launchpad, thereby keeping the AGPL purists happy, but ALSO offer a service to install it on customer's servers for $50 ? Just because the code is published freely and for nothing, it does not seem to logically exclude the possibility of also charging a fee to help those people who don't want to have to spend days trying to find the exact piece of code on the launchpad that they should be using. The reason it is relevant right now - is because there are large numbers of small changes and customisations that webstore designers want to have, and would be prepared to pay for, but which may never get developed because you are suggesting that the AGPL does not allow it. I think a clarification of this point would be really helpful for me, and perhaps for anyone else new to this particular form of license. Thanks Kurt > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Kurt Haselwimmer <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] > > Maybe I am missing something, but if I am it means it has not been > sufficiently signposted, as, for example, I have spent hours on the openERP > website trying to figure out if there is a way to attach simple courier > tracking information to a sales order once it has been despatched. As a > comparison - it took me a total of 5 minutes and $25 to find and buy such a > module > (http://www.opencart.com/index.php?route=extension/extension/info&extension_id=2389) > for opencart, plus a further 10 minutes to install it. > > Kurt > > > Hello Kurt, > > Well, for sure, you make a point about Launchpad and the lack of developer > communication about the website module before it was announced. > > But, as for your Opencart example, it's really related to the business model > and to the license. > How much does it cost to develop such a Opencart shipping module? Probably > not 25 USD. May be 5 000 USD or more... > That is if I'm assured by the licensing that I can sell 200 of them, I raise > the money and do the upfront development and create such a module and the > sell it. > This is the logic in an "open core" model such as Opencart or Magento. See > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_core > > But with Linux which is GPL or with OpenERP which is AGPL, this is > impossible: because the license allows the first customer to republish the > module under the AGPL license. It probably even goes in his own interest to > publish the module and get other people maintaining it instead of depending > on a unique IT supplier. > So potentially you'll sell it only once or twice! > If it still cost 5 000 USD to develop but brings you less than 100 USD from > selling it, it's not really a good deal for the software editor, right? > > Then you understand better there are fundamental differences between open > core and copyleft licensing business model such as Linux or OpenERP. > In the later model, indeed, conquering a new feature will cost more money to > the 1st one who will need it. But then it's free for everybody else and as > it's open source, it tends to consolidate to something sustainable instead of > say a Magento module. > > Now of course this is a caricature, some companies, even OpenERP SA still do > upfront investment because they bet that it allows them to achieve a good > market position to then sell their related services. But in any case it's > still a very different economics than the Open core model. Is it' a bad > model? Well when you look at where Linux is today and even OpenERP, I'm > convinced it's really not a bad model, even if it may take more time to reach > maturity. > > A bad side effect is that documentation tend to be scarce because nobody is > incentivated to do it because software editors in fact make a living selling > implementation and maintenance services to fund theses developments, so not > justifying, just explaining, this is one of the reason documentation tends to > be poor. If module editor or OpenERP SA would make it from selling the code, > the documentation would certainly be better. As OpenERP is now selling a SaaS > plateform, you can however expect a business model shift with better > documentation about the core. > > I feel these business economics could be better explained because newcomers > are really confused about this and loose time until they get it. > > -- > Raphaël Valyi > Founder and consultant > http://twitter.com/rvalyi > +55 21 2516 2954 > www.akretion.com > >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
