Control.com - Nerds in Control
from the Automation List department...
Re: contracts and software licenses (was Linux in the field)
On June 20, 2003, Bob Pawley wrote:
> > If the integrators own the code what's to stop them from charging
> > the client ongoing licensing fees as do all proprietary software
> > vendors?
On June 22, 2003, Greg Goodman (Chiron Consulting) wrote:
> That happens all the time. If the integrator charges licensing fees,
> then he/she *is* (by definition) a proprietary software vendor.
> A lot of integrators do cookie-cutter applications, building the same
> thing only different for a lot of different clients. Over time, the
> integrator amasses a body of expertise and builds a set of tools - or
> a complete application. Typically, the integrator retains the rights
> to the software, and charges each client a one-time non-exclusive
> license for installation, plus consulting fees for installation,
> configuration, customization, training, etc. (Actually, they usually
> just bid the job at some fixed lump sum - you don't necessarily know
> how they arrived at the number - but the software license specifies
> that they retain ownership.) The continuing revenue stream comes, not
> from yearly license fees, but from maintenance and support contracts.
You know, exactly the same would happen if the toolkit were GPL - except that many the integrators would use the same one, rather than each having their own. And because it'd be used by so many more people, it would probably have a breadth few single-integrator toolkits can match.
> When a client-specified customization is generally useful, and
> developed under a contract that lets the integrator re-use the code,
> the enhancements get folded back into the toolkit. (Of course, the
> client has the right to insist that the customization NOT be used
> elsewhere, but he can expect to pay significantly more for it.)
Yup, same with the GPL (both options).
> If a customization is more work than a single client is willing to pay
> for, sometimes a User's Group will band together to fund the work
> jointly.
Yup, same with the GPL.
> And sometimes the integrator just has to develop an enhancement on his
> own nickel to stay competitive.
This one would probably be much less common, but still a possibility.
Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <jiri@baum.com.au> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jirib
MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools
> > If the integrators own the code what's to stop them from charging
> > the client ongoing licensing fees as do all proprietary software
> > vendors?
On June 22, 2003, Greg Goodman (Chiron Consulting) wrote:
> That happens all the time. If the integrator charges licensing fees,
> then he/she *is* (by definition) a proprietary software vendor.
> A lot of integrators do cookie-cutter applications, building the same
> thing only different for a lot of different clients. Over time, the
> integrator amasses a body of expertise and builds a set of tools - or
> a complete application. Typically, the integrator retains the rights
> to the software, and charges each client a one-time non-exclusive
> license for installation, plus consulting fees for installation,
> configuration, customization, training, etc. (Actually, they usually
> just bid the job at some fixed lump sum - you don't necessarily know
> how they arrived at the number - but the software license specifies
> that they retain ownership.) The continuing revenue stream comes, not
> from yearly license fees, but from maintenance and support contracts.
You know, exactly the same would happen if the toolkit were GPL - except that many the integrators would use the same one, rather than each having their own. And because it'd be used by so many more people, it would probably have a breadth few single-integrator toolkits can match.
> When a client-specified customization is generally useful, and
> developed under a contract that lets the integrator re-use the code,
> the enhancements get folded back into the toolkit. (Of course, the
> client has the right to insist that the customization NOT be used
> elsewhere, but he can expect to pay significantly more for it.)
Yup, same with the GPL (both options).
> If a customization is more work than a single client is willing to pay
> for, sometimes a User's Group will band together to fund the work
> jointly.
Yup, same with the GPL.
> And sometimes the integrator just has to develop an enhancement on his
> own nickel to stay competitive.
This one would probably be much less common, but still a possibility.
Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <jiri@baum.com.au> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jirib
MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools
Your use of this site is subject to the terms and conditions set forth under Legal Notices and the Privacy Policy. Please read those terms and conditions carefully. Subject to the rights expressly reserved to others under Legal Notices, the content of this site and the compilation thereof is © 1999-2010 Nerds in Control, LLC. All rights reserved.
Users of this site are benefiting from open source technologies, including PHP, MySQL and Apache. Be happy.
Fortune
Test-tube babies shouldn't throw stones.
