"Tony Gravagno" <g6q3x9lu53001 (AT) sneakemail (DOT) com.invalid> wrote

IIRC, that was the original Pick implementors agreement. While I was with
CDI, doing the Series/1 port of Open Architecture, we paid a fee, got
complete source, had to send back any changes/upgrades we did which then
belonged to Pick (if they wanted it; most often they didn't). But for a
$1M, we got to distribute it.

Mark

Hi Tony,

<snip>

This affirmation of the intellectual honesty of the MV VAR community is
reassuring. Or are they simply leaving DAAWOL (Dishonesty As A Way Of
Life) to the professionals - the US Gov't?

Do we? Why then do we intentionally blur accepted meanings -
capitalization and all (see below)?

Anyone who cares about their business and the integrity of their
vendors?

'many people' being virtually everyone who has ever been in close
proximity to any kind of computing device? If you would care to invest
a few moments in researching this opinion:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

<more 'spin' snipped>

Again in the interest of accuracy,
-Tom

Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job.

Tony Gravagno wrote:
ARGH! That's definitely not Open Source. There's no problem with
charging people a fee for open source, but the license must permit
redistribution. Please write in to these magazines and correct them.

Sure. That's because what you describe is not Open Source. You say
that business owners don't care how "open" it is. I suppose that
business owners eqally don't care about the terms of their insurance
policy either. But just like you can get screwed by the fine print of
an insurance policy, you can also get screwed by the fine print of a
license that claims to be Open Source but which is not OSI Certified.
If you're using software which isn't Open Source, your vendor has the
ability to screw you over. THAT is why careful business owners care
how open is the code they're using.

So you're saying that even though everyone else thinks that Open Source
is one thing, you know better? Perhaps, sir, it is you who are on the
outboard end of the plank?

Sheesh, get over it already guys. Use the words "Open Source" and
people come out of the woodwork as though someone had said "Pro
Choice".

My first mention of OS related to dm,bp was a joke.
(Foghorn Leghorn Get it son? I say, I say, a joke.
Next time I'll use a winky or ten.

For my last post, the mistake I made (only because some people are so
overly sensitive) was capitalizing "Open Source", where this term
implies a defined distribution model, and not distinguishing from
"open-source" as in "source included". I have no intention to
advocate dishonesty in marketing or practices.

Let's define what it is that "open-source" means to business owners:
It's the freedom to modify their code, ensure that there's nothing in
there that's detrimental to their business, and insure against the
software going inactive if the vendor goes away. Whether capitalized
or not, the term means exactly the same to the non IT widget maker.
Why does one business owner care about his ability to share his
business rules with others, especially competitors if his rules are
vertically optimized for competitive advantage? A business owner only
cares that his source code is open enough for him to see and maybe
customize for his own use. There's no need to confuse this with free
beer or some assumed inherent right or obligation to allow other
companies to run on his copy of the software. The typical end-user of
business software knows nothing about the Cathedral or the Bazaar.

Many MV VARs have been providing source code to their end users for
years, and end-users are happy with the arrangement. I'm suggesting
that vendors take advantage of the fact that what they've been doing
for years is now popular and can at least draw more business toward
them and serve as a sales check item for those types of end-users
described above.

I do not suggest VARs mislead prospects to believe that their source
is "Open Source" according to the OSI, FSF, etc, or that they imply
that it's GPL or under similar licensing if it's not. Maybe I'd incur
less wrath if I clarified that using a term like "source code
included" would be beneficial. But along with general suggestions for
how people can sell more software, do I really need to state
specifically what words to use?

I think most people here know I get bent out of shape about how people
use words to distort the truth. But I temper that with an
understanding that we're exposed to this in marketing all the time.
- Take for example a "30% Off Sale" at a store that has pricing over
20% higher than competitors for the same item.
- Or "Clearance Sale" or "Going out of business sale" that never seem
to end?
- Am I going to attract cute babes if I buy that SUV?
- Is it dishonest to say a car has $189/month payment if the fine
print says "with $7000 down payment"?
- Does AOL spam protection really justify charging customers double
what everyone else does for Net access?

I'm suggesting that people use marketing trends to their advantage,
without being slimey about it. Somewhere between Zero marketing and
"slimey", there has to be a balance and everyone is free to find their
own middle ground.

And now that I've gone through all that, why is it that I need to
explain these subtleties to people who accept a product called
"OpenQM"? I'm not talking about the Open Source OpenQM, I'm talking
about the for-fee, closed source OpenQM which used to be QM until
someone decided to take advantage of the marketing benefits of calling
it Open. Hmmm... I've accepted that naming convention after openly
complaining about it, should I reconsider?

Anyone who reads the business rags regularly will see that the Linux
world still suffers from a perceived lack of application support. Our
market has hundreds of packages that run over Linux. People in the
open market need to disjoint the notion of "source included" with
"free". Once they do they'll see that the Linux world is not lacking
software offerings at all, but that there is still a mass of
developers who make their living writing and selling software. If
people want these fine works to run their businesses they're just
going to have to pay for them. I'm hoping MV people will understand
this supply and demand gap, and attempt to fill it using the same
equitable and ethical business practices they've been using for years.

T



nelson (AT) crynwr (DOT) com wrote:

Hi Dan,

What a subtle sense of humor.

Have you ever noticed that sometimes the more one says, the more damage
is done to ones cause?