Thank you for all your responce on my previous thread. There were very valuable to me. Most of all I do like you all respected my conditions. There was even a responce to warn me I should not make my propriety software Open Source because then I could not earn any money from my extension. That kind of responce within a Open Source community is really altruism.
*Summery of my question* : My conditions are : *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.
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 My question is here : Please convince me I have to make my propriety software open source.
*Summery of responce :* Business model. In the responce there was a suggestion to make my software Open Source and earn money on support. This is a standard business model in Open Source community. First I do not want this. Second it is not possible for me because I am an software architect not a developer.
Create a barrier. If I want people use my extensions as SAAS and they have to pay for that service AND is it is also Open Source, then there should be a kind of a barrier. Otherwise nobody will use my SAAS solution any more. Or a competitor can create the same kind of SAAS solution but more cheap because I have the costs, and the competitor the profit.
Advertising on Wiki hosting as SAAS. Not mentioned, but I hate advertising, especially on a wiki, so for me that is no solution.
I am an entrepreneur, it is my responsibilty to find a good business model. But thanks for thinking with me.
Credits If I make my software Open Source I get the credits for that. That is very important to me. If enterprises want to use a wiki internally they can do so with the Open Source version. But the real knowledge is within Wikiation, my company. Credits are very strong related to the license. Do I really get the credits? I know in theory it should be. But how this can be achieved in real life?
So its boils down to me : *Is a Open Source license solid, reliable. *Do I really get the credits.
If you can convince me for these two items then I am totally convinced.
With regards Bernard
Bernard@bernardHulsman.nl wrote:
Thank you for all your responce on my previous thread. There were very valuable to me. Most of all I do like you all respected my conditions. There was even a responce to warn me I should not make my propriety software Open Source because then I could not earn any money from my extension. That kind of responce within a Open Source community is really altruism.
The best way to promote anything, including the open source community, is to make sure you are honest about what you will get. If you mislead someone, you will generate ill feelings. So yes, it's partly altruism, but it's also just wise for the future of the community itself. It serves no one when anyone is unhappy.
So its boils down to me : *Is a Open Source license solid, reliable.
There are many, many "open source" licenses out there beyond the usual GPL. Perhaps you would benefit from looking into the various licenses to see if one fits you best? Start by looking at the open source licenses used by Sun, Red Hat or other major commercial entities.
Once you settle on a given license, or have narrowed down your choices to a smaller set, then you can properly ask the question above. Also, you will need to ask "solid, reliable" from which view point? The GPL has been tested in court and passed. So for the model it fits, it is solid and reliable.
*Do I really get the credits.
You can always trademark the name and logo associated with your product. This is the case, for example, with "Tux", the Linux penguin, and the name "Linux" itself. The creators maintain rights and their names are associated with those marks. Perhaps you can approach this the same way? Like above, the more immediate question is; What kind of credit are you looking to protect?
From a simple historical view; You will always be the creator. Likewise, contributors will always be known as the contributor of feature X or bugfix Y. How prominently do you want this credit? Do you desire it be affix to any derivative, for example?
If you can convince me for these two items then I am totally convinced.
With regards Bernard
At the end of the day, it is not up to us to convince you, however much we may wish to do so. It is for you to understand the open source options open to you and then to decide if one fits. We can help by sharing what we know of the various options and communities only. Further, and final decision must be vetted by your lawyer.
So then, ask the questions you need to in order to feel comfortable with whatever decision you think of making. There, we will do our best to help.
Cheers,
Madi
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
So its boils down to me : *Is a Open Source license solid, reliable.
Yes
*Do I really get the credits.
You will always own the copyright of your work unless you hand it over. Offering your code under an Open Source license is not giving that copyright away, it just means you're allowing others to use it under your (the license) terms.
Bernard wrote:
Or a competitor can create the same kind of SAAS solution but more cheap because I have the costs, and the competitor the profit.
If the competitor doesn't innovate, he will be just copying your version, unable to provide the new features the client wants.
Credits If I make my software Open Source I get the credits for that. That is very important to me. If enterprises want to use a wiki internally they can do so with the Open Source version. But the real knowledge is within Wikiation, my company. Credits are very strong related to the license. Do I really get the credits? I know in theory it should be. But how this can be achieved in real life?
Your extension should register itself in Special:Version. It will show there the extension name, the author and a link to its root site.
If someone else uses your software to give out the same services as you, you will still be credited there. If they chosed the other guy just because he was 50% cheaper and it's enough his lower level of support, it's ok. If they want you can point on how the other guys are using your software, and show that your company is leading that development. Thus, it is in their interest to have the best company, that is, yours. Of course, you may be from that role if you stop improving it and another one does. Even in that case, you would still be able to give a better service to your customers than if you were the only owners of the extension by taking *their* fixes.
Could the rival company remove the line giving you credit from there? Yes, but that is considered a Very Bad Behavior in the Free Software community, and are likely to be breaking the license. Almost all software licenses have a statement saying that the authors must be credited. They could argue that you are still credited in some hidden file, but that's borderline on their side. Removing from there a significant contributor (pretty much, the sole author!) from where they were shown, is morally dubious and might void their license to use your extension.
Hy Platonics,
Thank you very much for your reply. I have used you reply to create a new thread "Please convince me to make my software open source (3)"
Your contribution is very valuable to me to me for making this important decision.
With regard Bernard
Platonides wrote:
Bernard wrote:
Or a competitor can create the same kind of SAAS solution but more cheap because I have the costs, and the competitor the profit.
If the competitor doesn't innovate, he will be just copying your version, unable to provide the new features the client wants.
Credits If I make my software Open Source I get the credits for that. That is very important to me. If enterprises want to use a wiki internally they can do so with the Open Source version. But the real knowledge is within Wikiation, my company. Credits are very strong related to the license. Do I really get the credits? I know in theory it should be. But how this can be achieved in real life?
Your extension should register itself in Special:Version. It will show there the extension name, the author and a link to its root site.
If someone else uses your software to give out the same services as you, you will still be credited there. If they chosed the other guy just because he was 50% cheaper and it's enough his lower level of support, it's ok. If they want you can point on how the other guys are using your software, and show that your company is leading that development. Thus, it is in their interest to have the best company, that is, yours. Of course, you may be from that role if you stop improving it and another one does. Even in that case, you would still be able to give a better service to your customers than if you were the only owners of the extension by taking *their* fixes.
Could the rival company remove the line giving you credit from there? Yes, but that is considered a Very Bad Behavior in the Free Software community, and are likely to be breaking the license. Almost all software licenses have a statement saying that the authors must be credited. They could argue that you are still credited in some hidden file, but that's borderline on their side. Removing from there a significant contributor (pretty much, the sole author!) from where they were shown, is morally dubious and might void their license to use your extension.
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
Hi Bernard,
I think you should go entirely closed-source, and close yourself up in a bunker without internet. I just thought you may want to hear another opinion.
Domas
Domas Mituzas wrote:
Hi Bernard,
I think you should go entirely closed-source, and close yourself up in a bunker without internet. I just thought you may want to hear another opinion.
Domas
Domas,
Having run a business myself for >10 years, I can understand where Bernard is coming from. Everything in business involves risks, so all you can do is choose the risks that you feel most comfortable with. He asked questions, the community addressed those questions and from that he chose a course of action.
The trade of he will face now is limited up-take of his software. Also, he will not have third-party growth of his software, either. Everything that goes into it will remain an out-of-pocket expense. These two side effects of his choice are also big risks, but they are the risk he has chosen to shoulder.
We, as members of the open source community, would do well to wish him luck. Every one of us reflects the community, and snarky remarks make the community look childish. I would have preferred it become open source; Not because I plan to use it but because I want the community to benefit from the largest pool of code possible. Being rude to him will make the chance of him later changing his mind that much smaller. Why would you contribute to a community that has been rude to you?
Bernard,
So as much as I can say this on behalf of the community at large, I wish you the best of luck. Honestly.
Madi
Hi!
We, as members of the open source community, would do well to wish him luck. Every one of us reflects the community, and snarky remarks make the community look childish. I would have preferred it become open source; Not because I plan to use it but because I want the community to benefit from the largest pool of code possible. Being rude to him will make the chance of him later changing his mind that much smaller. Why would you contribute to a community that has been rude to you?
I'm not rude. He is rude. We didn't ask him to convince us to release our work as open-source, and yet he uses it for his business. :-)
Domas
Domas Mituzas wrote:
Hi!
We, as members of the open source community, would do well to wish him luck. Every one of us reflects the community, and snarky remarks make the community look childish. I would have preferred it become open source; Not because I plan to use it but because I want the community to benefit from the largest pool of code possible. Being rude to him will make the chance of him later changing his mind that much smaller. Why would you contribute to a community that has been rude to you?
I'm not rude. He is rude. We didn't ask him to convince us to release our work as open-source, and yet he uses it for his business. :-)
Domas
Then lets say "take the high road". Regardless, our words and out actions reflect on the community.
Madi
On 1/21/2010 3:03 PM, Madison Kelly wrote:
Domas Mituzas wrote:
Hi!
We, as members of the open source community, would do well to wish him luck. Every one of us reflects the community, and snarky remarks make the community look childish. I would have preferred it become open source; Not because I plan to use it but because I want the community to benefit from the largest pool of code possible. Being rude to him will make the chance of him later changing his mind that much smaller. Why would you contribute to a community that has been rude to you?
I'm not rude. He is rude. We didn't ask him to convince us to release our work as open-source, and yet he uses it for his business. :-)
Domas
Then lets say "take the high road". Regardless, our words and out actions reflect on the community.
Madi
I think the problem is more of a problem of semantics. I will admit that I felt a bit put off by the initial e-mail and the subject line. What he was asking, IMHO, was for us to tell him the benefits of open source and why it is a viable business platform.
Domas Mituzas wrote:
Hi Bernard,
I think you should go entirely closed-source, and close yourself up in a bunker without internet. I just thought you may want to hear another opinion.
Domas
Domas, this will come to a different stage. What happened to me was abuse of my positive trust. I assumed the MediaWiki community had high moral standards. Of course there can be a few exceptions.
I really thought "assume good faith" was more then just speech.
On Wikipedia good faith is assumed. If your correct edit of a Wikipage is corrupted by a vandal there is a high developed mechanism to stop this vandal. Only because this mechanism exist the quality of the content is so high.
But for MediaWiki Open Source software it seems to you; if there has been a vandal who abused your trust, accept that. That seems to be normal in your opinion. There is no mechanism to correct this and there is no need for such a mechanism.
Even if moral standards does not have a high value to you. And the world is limited only about making everything Open Source. Even then, do you think it is wise to accept such an abuse? Do you think this will help moving to Open Source?
If Wikipedia should have this attitude, nobody should edit anymore.
But Domas, I am happy you took the effort to reply. All replies together give me a better impression of the MediaWiki community, and its way of thinking.
With regards Bernard
mediawiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org