I think that what others have suggested is that they understand that it would lead to a healthier and longer lasting relationship with your customer if you sell him (and charge accordingly) the template and the freedom to use the template however they want (that would probably include buying customization and enhancement services from the person that knows more about that template), than if you sell them a black box.
Obviously, you know your business environment better than the rest of us, but I think that is a suggestion worth some consideration. Honestly, I did not see no demonizing or anti-business attitude. -Xavier On Jan 10, 4:59 pm, SteveM <[email protected]> wrote: > Re: Social engineering. Well you guys are demonizing me for what > appears to be a pretty legitimate question and line of inquiry. Why > is that? I have great relationships with my clients. And I don't > assign a large ethical component to app development. Wanting to > protect the time and effort invested in product development seems to > be a pretty benign objective. > > I mean if I develop a VBA app for Excel for a customer, I compile it > into an Add-In to protect my IP. VBA is essentially "open source" in > that it's bundled into Excel. Am I socially "mis-engineered" for not > giving the customer the source code? > > So you guys kind of lost me. It's just business... > > Steve > > P.S. I don't want to mix it up. Appreciate your thoughts and > feedback. > > On Jan 10, 10:48 am, FND <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > You look at TW as a labor of love. > > > [...] > > > Apps get developed when there's money in it. It seems like a tension > > > exists in the open-source community because "profit" is made to be a > > > bad thing. > > > That's not correct. While there are some people in the FOSS community > > who regard making money as inherently evil, that doesn't apply to > > everyone, and it's certainly not true for most people in the TiddlyWiki > > community. > > > I was actually taking a very pragmatic rather than an ideological view > > in my previous post. > > There are certainly scenarios where publishing the source code does not > > make sense for the developers (ESR explains such cases in CatB[1]) - > > it's just that people often tend to be overprotective, insisting on > > closed source when open source would actually be more > > effective/efficient (FWIW, my boss has published some thoughts and > > observations on this issue[2]). > > > > the solution may be to focus on social engineering instead of software > > > engineering > > > Seconded; as mentioned before, you seem to be focusing on the wrong issue. > > > -- F. > > > [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar > > [2]http://tinyurl.com/5jzxjg > > (http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2008/10/21/learning-about-why-people-do...) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/TiddlyWiki?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
