Boris Steipe wrote:
In my area of work (bioinformatics) I have not seen convincing business models that were based on charging for code. Integration, customization, consulting - yes, it needs a lot of expertise to get that right and people are willing to pay for that expertise. Contributing to the open-source pool advertises your organization's capacity to understand real-world issues and address them in a viable way. $0.02 - B.
Boris, I am not thinking about charging for code. There must be a barrier between Open Source and SAAS. But this barrier does not need to be charging money.
For developers your argument is correct. I am not a developer. I am an architect who design the software and the developer programs it. The developer get paid for his work. It is my ownership, my (Open Source) copyright.
On details I am not the best person to go to. If there is a bug the developer can solve it better. But for the big architecture I am the one who does the design. And if I am not there the work can continue for a few months and then its stuck.
So as a business model this does not work for me.
With regards Bernard
On 18-Jan-10, at 1:21 PM, Bernard@bernardHulsman.nl wrote:
Boris Steipe wrote:
Also: in the information-based economy, an increasingly important part of the revenue of your activities is "mind-share". No better way to demonstrate your expertise to the world than to contribute something useful. B.
Boris. Thanks. That is indeed a good argument. But then I must be able to show that my expertise is indeed my expertise. My company is Wikiation. The bundle extensions is named Wikibox Blue. The copyright is and should stay mine!. That is. It can be GPL or an other Open Source license what I chose. If I should loose that then I should loose everything. I lost exclusive ownership of the software and I loose to demonstrate my expertise.
Regards, Bernard
On 18-Jan-10, at 11:46 AM, Robert Cummings wrote:
Hi Bernard,
By open-sourcing your work the community gains from your work; however, this generally forms a positive reciprocity loop whereby the community will feed back into your contributions with their own enhancements, ideas, and bug fixes from which you will then benefit.
Cheers, Rob.
Bernard@bernardHulsman.nl wrote:
We have build many extensions to improve the functionality of MediaWiki. It is for Enterprise use as Knowledge management infrastructure. The name of the extensions and additional functionality is Wikibox Blue. The software is propriety.
It can be hosted as SAAS
Today there has been a request if automatic signing of thread is possible in the discussion page. This is standard functionality in WikiForum. Which can be used in the talk namespace.
But it is propriety software. So it can not be used.
My question is here : Please convince me I have to make my propriety software open source.
With some conditions : *I decide if I make Wikibox Blue Open source *I decide when Wikibox Blue will be Open source *I decide on which conditions Wikibox Blue will be open source.
If you respect these conditions please try to convince me I should do it. Keep in mind it is a mayor step for me and my company.
Bernard Hulsman
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
-- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l