Dual licensing policy zk

DUAL LICENSING POLICY –
NEWWAY FORSOFTWARE
DEVELOPMENT
ZbynekKrivanek, Karel Charvat
Czech Centre forScience and Society, Prague, Czech
Republic

Announcement
19. - 21. May 2010IST-Africa 2010 Conference
2
 This presentation is prepared by persons, who do not
usually use Open Source on desktop platform
 This presentation is prepared by persons, who are
managers of a team which uses open source as a tool of
development

 This presentation is prepared by persons, who are
managers of a team which publishes part of its
development as Open Source
 The presentation is prepared by persons, who like many
innovative solutions coming from Open Source
community

Announcement
3
 The presentation is prepared by persons, who believe
that it is not possible to provide research on the base of
commercial software

 This presentation is prepared by persons, who take
Open Source for business strategy

Basic Questions
4
 Who are users of Open Source?
 Why do people use Open Source?
 What is the main motivation for using Open
Source?
 Who are developers of Open Source?
 Are open source tools for end users or rather for
developers?
 What is more important - freedom of use or the
right solution?
 What is more important - Open Source or
interoperability?

Go Further
5
 Two terms that we have taken into account
 Knowledge Society
 Knowledge based economy

Knowledge Society
6
 It is characteristic of Knowledge societies that
knowledge forms a major component of any human
activity. Economic, social, cultural, and all other human
activities become dependent on a huge volume of
knowledge and information.

Knowledge Economy
7
 Knowledge economy is a term that refers either to an
economy of knowledge focused on the production and
management of knowledge or to a knowledge-based
economy

Key Questions
8
 Are KS and KE in synergy?
 Could knowledge society and knowledge economy
coexist?
 Is knowledge a creative force and is it good?
 Are we able to find the way for creative force to support
business?

Backto Open Source
9
 On one hand, relatively good market success of Web
based solution
 Almost zero acceptance of Open Source desktop GIS
solution by general public (non FOSS community,
consisting mainly of young people and people from
academic communities)
 Open Source software starts to play more and more
important role on the market of geospatial solution, on
the other hand, even now you can still very often hear
the argument that Open Source software is not suitable
for large projects

Humboldt SWOT Analysis
10
 Open Source platform for end-users
 Commercial/Closed Source platform for end-users
 Open Source for commercial business development
 Analysis from point of view of a manager of company
developing Open Source

ANALYSIS OF STRENGTH
of OS forEnd Users
11
 It is for free (no fees, no maintenance cost)
 Usually open code (source) allows legal changes
 Wide and good (voluntary!) support and developing by
communities across the globe
 As a result of the above said, the final code is usually
stable and of good quality
 Fast accessibility of the new solutions and updates
which reflect any change of circumstances
 Free (or inexpensive) licence acquisition and
management

of OS forEnd Users
12
 Independence on any kind of company strategy or
business plans
 Under given licence possibility of redistribution
 Easy adaptation of the open source framework to the
specific needs and programming of additional
extensions (modules)
 Approx. 50% cost reduction in comparison to the paid
software
 Well known open source code is much easier to
understand and grasp by a new programmer in case of
a personnel change
 Quick Release Rate
 Parallel Development and Debugging
 Long Term Accessibility
 Many open plugins and extensions

ANALYSIS OF WEAKNESS
of OS forEnd Users
13
 Simply, the support is on voluntary basis and may be
insufficient
 Limited development possibilities
 The development without any control or management
 As a result of the previously said, it is hard to guide the
process towards EU strategy or basically towards our
expectations or needs
 The product is for free, but the support can sometimes
be paid and in case of any problems it is quite expensive
 May not be stable or cause problems and instability with
certain hardware
 Could be more difficult to grasp by end users (front end
application can be confusing…)

of OS forEnd Users
14
 Uncertain timeline of development and releasing of new
versions
 In case of any specific needs it has to be „tailored“ by
commercial company and can be expensive
 Sometimes the documentation is missing and training of
a new staff may be difficult
 There is no guarantee and no warranty claim
 Lack of “Ownership”
 Because of open solution, it is hard to be original
 The stuff must be really skilled
 May not comply with required standards

ANALYSIS OF OPPORTUNITIES
of OS forEnd Users
15
 Open solutions aren’t usually suitable for critical
solutions as they cannot handle the large data sets or
bulk amount of operations
 Openness of source solutions offers wider cooperation
and space to create new business opportunities
 There are already a few examples of successful stories
(Linux OS is used at the municipal authority Domažlice,
Ostrava)
 Due to the open society of developers the new practices
are easier and faster speeded around
 Should be aimed at the non-profit (no critical) sector and
state/municipal authorities

ANALYSIS OF THREATS
of OS forEnd Users
16
 No guarantee of technical support
 Sometimes the linkage to another solutions is missing
 Some commercial companies don’t allow to implement the open solution
into their software framework
 There can be a compatibility issue regarding the file formats (e.g. MS
Office/Open Office)
 As already mentioned above, the stuff must be more skilled
 Many different types of free licences. Sometimes it is hard to follow their
rules
 Lack of Compatible Applications
 Problems with patents
 More possible security risk (hackers or data loss/damage) and bugs
 Development can easily be stopped without explanation or
development objectives can be changed

Commerce PlatformforFinal
Users
17
 There is usually clear technological linkage
 Worldwide support
 Competitive offer for each „family“ of products which
makes the price lower
 Substitutability of the programming stuff
 Training provided according to the end user needs
 All should be done under obvious and clear conditions
between software company and end users who can
control the whole developing process
 The development is well aimed and has its time frame
defined
 s

Users
18
 Detailed documentation usually also in printed form
 Each product or software framework has a guarantee and in
case of any problem it can be claimed back
 It should always fulfil all the given requirements (if provided to
the programmer in advance)
 In case of long-time solutions (typically OS) , maintenance
cost is rather cheap
 There is a wide offer of verified tools
 Strong leadership
 Good skills
 Large installed base or market share in operating systems and
application software
 Large reserves of cash – it means it can grow very quickly
through acquisition and also buy up new technologie

Users
19
 All depends on the budget
 Not free of course
 High purchase cost
 Expensive training
 High cost for additional features, especially for some
local (extra ordinal) additions
 Some minor customers may be unable to enforce their
own demands on some specific features in widely used
software

Users
20
 Sometimes it is impossible to arrange direct cooperation
between software developer and end user – in this case
the only way is to hire external integrating company,
which used to be very expansive
 Time consuming claiming of a guarantee of „ boxed“
software
 Kind of addiction to the chosen software platform
 Proprietary Software – code not open
 Being large sometimes makes it difficult to move quickly
 Revenue model does not result in sustainable growth –
once a product has been sold that is it, the only way to
make more money is by selling upgrades

ANALYSIS OF
OPPORTUNITIES Commerce
PlatformforFinal Users
21
 References
 Covers all the sectors – private and also public
 Solution that suits to the so called „boxed“ software
 Users’ reactions
 New revenue models such as renting software

ANALYSIS OF THREATS
Users
22
 Support may not always be 100%
 There could not be linkage to the solutions of other
companies
 Difficult and expensive implementation of different
solutions or extensions
 The development can also be stopped for many reasons
 Open Source Movement – means that most software will
become free and delivering good service will be where
the money comes from.
 DOJ (Department of Justice). (Microsoft is perceived by
the United States Government as being a monopoly.
This means its every move is being watched. )

forApplication Developers
23
 There is no need to pay either for the software or for
possible support
 End user can influence the development or simply
address the programmer with specific remarks
 There is a chance to take part in the development
process, be it only helping with the translation or
something similar
 Usually the open softwares are written in such a way that
every skilled person can change them freely and easily,
they are highly configurable
 Programs are usually made with emphasis on the
backwards compatibility, new releases are fully
compatible with the older versions
 There is „social“ network around the developers and
among the end users

24
 There is a wide offer of many different programs for
each specific need, end users have free choice of the
program which suits them best
 Programs usually use well known standards and don’t
come with their own new standards
 Source code is repeatedly reviewed and cached by the
community, therefore the probability of a failure is very
low
 Typically, there are many minor releases during the year,
so that the end user can always use fresh update of the
program
 There is still the possibility to use developer’s version as
well as it can be automatically updated a few times a day
if needed
 The programs are well documented
 Usually there is a guarantee that the original license will

25
 The end user has to find the suitable program among
the others and it can be time consuming
 For many users it used to be difficult to switch to the
open source platform, especially concerning the
operating systems and their administration
 As a result of the previously said, there are still
commercial OS prevailing on the workstations. There
can be difficulties with communication with the
environment especially in the domain of exchange
formats. But this point is being solved by implementing
some kind of exchange filters (released as an open
source).
 Sometimes it is hard to make the commercial product
working on given computer configuration (e.g. Skype or
RealPlayer can not be used on a PC with processor
amd64)

ANALYSIS OF
OPPORTUNITIES
26
 A program can be found fully suiting the end user’s
needs
 The end user can be engaged directly in the
development and leave his own „footprint“ there
 Sometimes the program can be very simple and the end
user can easily grasp how it works
 User can just cut off the usable part of the code and
starts his own project on this
 It is possible to use a source code from another project if
both licenses allow that

ANALYSIS OF THREATS
27
 There is still a chance that we will not ever find the right
program which suits to our needs
 It has never happened that somebody makes an
absolutely suitable program for us
 The development is stopped without anybody willing to
continue
 There is still a threat of unsolved question of the software
patents
 Even if you encounter the right program, the
documentation is missing
 The pressure of the company environment makes the
user comeback to the „closed“ commercial platform

forCommercial Company Developing
OS
28
 If the right license is used, you can use some parts of
source code from other open projects and not try to
invite already working solutions..
 If the development group is being split apart (so called
„fork“, see bellow) , you can gather the code from the
another group without problems

OS
29
 According to the open philosophy, it is hard to get some
fees for the program usage
 It is necessary to change the business mode. The
source of money revenue is not primarily program sale,
but additional services
 The users are sometimes quite ungrateful or even rude,
so that it is hard to deal with them

ANALYSIS OF
OPPORTUNITIES
OS
30
 If the project is really interesting, many external
developers, translators and contributors will join
it for free as well as the community of testers,
who contribute to the quality of the final product
 Affordable software of course attracts the end
users
 The program can become the so called „killer“
which means that the application which is being
considered as a standard application for the
given solution may force the user to change to
this platform

ANALYSIS OF THREATS
OS
31
 The group can split apart with all the source codes and
find the new company, so called „fork“. This is mainly
caused by personal arguments inside a team. Or simply,
a rival company can take over the development and
introduce the business plan better.
 - It can happen that a very important developer leaves
the company and the right substitution won’t be found.
The reason for this (leaving the company) may be even
very ridicule.

Conclusion fromSWOT
analysis
32
 End users usually see only one advantage of OS,
they don’t need to pay.
 With Web application it is relative, because end
users are usually not able to manage any solution
without commercial companies
 OS is probably the best solution for developers of
final applications (but there is the problem that such
developers frequently don’t contribute to OS
development). To some extent they can be
considered parasites. No GPL license will solve this
problem, this firm will use non GPL products or they
will find a solution to minimize their contribution

Conclusion fromSWOT
analysis
33
 It is not easy to find the right strategy for commercial
developers of OS
 The business models and licenses are not easy
 It is difficult to protect one’s own know-how against big
predators
 There is an important question: when you open your
software, you can profit from a community, if your
position is strong
 Open Source will never win without strong support of
commercial organizations
 Open Source could be a good opportunity for small
businesses, if they are able to build a community and
collaborate

Some Ideas about GPL License
34
 The main question is, if GPL license really helps to
strengthen the position of Open Source on the
market
 The basic idea behind GPL license is to push
people to opening their solution (virus license), but
usually it doesn’t work
 It could be limitating for strong players on the
market to use this software
 GPL is ideal solution for companies as a part of
dual license. It could protect interest of developers,
but in principle it offers possibility for commercial
utilization
 The best example seems to be GeoServer

Thank you for your attention
35
 I am ready to answeryourquestions and
comments, but I would like to askyou about
some of my ideas.
 charvat@ccss.cz

Dual licensing policy zk

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (12)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Dual licensing policy zk

Similar to Dual licensing policy zk (20)

More from Karel Charvat

More from Karel Charvat (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Dual licensing policy zk