Thomas Beale wrote: > David Forslund wrote: >> I am familiar with this problem. It seems to me to stem from negotiating >> the wrong kind of contract. I don't think FOSS helps that much because >> the contracts seem to me to be negotiated from ignorance. If the local >> organization demands interoperability BEFORE they sign a contract they >> will have more power over the provider. If they don't understand the >> technology >> > this is a little bit off the topic, but Dave's comments here just > reminded me to post something we have been finding useful in negotiating > contracts (as a software vendor) where the software is FOSS (my company, > Ocean Informatics is offering a GPL or commercial licence choice to > buyers). Anyway, recently we had a conversation during the negotiation > phase with one very large (typically skeptical) company that wanted our > software development expertise but of course wanted to own all the > software we developed for them. We on the other hand try to build things > very generically, and don't want to go around having to rewrite all the > time due to not having access to the IP. We took a pretty strong stance > in the negotiation on open source. In the end it came down to them > saying: why should we pay you to develop your product? Well, of course > we said the obvious things like: > - it's your product too. You set the requirements, not us > - you'll get the benefit of maintenance and bugfixing due to wider use > than just you > - etc > > But in the end the argument that they understood was this: > - every piece of software has a total cost over its lifetime. It is > commonly accepted that the build cost to first deployment is roughly 30% > and that the cost of maintenance and enhancement over the remaining life > of the product is 70% (obviously this varies but it's a pretty common > figure given in the literature). > - so you (the customer) are paying for 30% of the total cost, upfront > for a generic component. > - we (the builder) pick up 70% of the cost, in an incremental ongoing > fashion. > - You get free access for the life of the product. > > Now, if we just charge reasonable contracting rates to get the thing > built, the price the customer pays is the price of building it. But what > they get is a lifetime of use, including all updates, upgrades etc etc. > > This is all obvious to people on this list, but not to most corporate > customers. I don't know if this particular way of justifying open source > in contracts is commonly used or described in the open source > literature, but for convincing hard-nosed businesses who are most > interested in monetary arguments, it works quite well.
That's an excellent way of putting the argument, and I'll squirrel that away and trot it out when necessary if I may. I would have thought that the arguments needed to convince software vendors (who are typically in competition with each other) need to be stronger (as yours is) than the arguments needed to convince healthcare providers or health authorities (which tend not to be in competition with each other, at least not in many countries). However, I am still often asked the question 'Why should we (meaning a health authority for jurisdiction A) pay for software which jurisdiction B can also use?' As you say, the answer is obvious to us, but a large number of people have never considered the fact that software, like most "intellectual property" (a horribly misleading term), is not depleted by more widespread use, but rather is enhanced (in every respect) by it. Tim C ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/W4wwlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openhealth/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
