Brian, I agree with you. Especially about the 'multiple owners' part.
Having 1 or 2 partners isn't bad, but too many more and Chris is right
about 'the camel.'
But, that being said, I do think it can work out where everyone has
ownership of the code and can do what they want with it outside of
certain boundries.
IMO, I think the developer needs to at least make his hourly wage.
Hopefully, he'll make more with future revenues based on his code.
Overall, the concept of 'selling your idea' first, garnering some cash
support, and then building a product, isn't bad. Outside of the
ownership issues you bring up, and basic issues of trust, there is room
for this concept to work.
best,
Chipp
Brian Yennie wrote:
Not to make this a debate, but...
What I don't like about the system below (and why I think it hasn't
happened already to any great extent) is:
* Investors will have to put a lot more money up for the developer to
give up ownership of the product to the investors
* Multiple investors "owning" a product and dividing profits is a pain
(and not so lucrative)
Rather, I think it's good to drive down the initial cost (so people will
actually buy in), and allow *someone* to have some real profit
potential, as I don't think a 3rd party Rev product split too many ways
excites anyone just yet.
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
