Subject: Re: Which DUAL Licence should I choose.
From: Thomas Schneider <>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:40:34 +0200

Hello Dennis,

    just to add (from my side) that I did work approx. 20 Years for 
General Electric Information Services (GEISCO's) Mark III Service, as 
managger System Development and Consulting (SDC) Austria... (long time 
ago ...)

    There I did author a couple of internationally used TOOLS, which 
have been in the EURO: Library. And I did get (as an author, some 20 % 
of the 20 %
that were added to the CRU's (Computer Resource Unit's), which have been 
billed in those days by GEISCO to their customer's.

   Due to the worldwide eavy usage of my software in those days, it was 
still a considerable (and very welcom) steady additional income).

   oh have those been times ;-) we did have something like international 
Mail Services back in 1972!

   What I'm seeking now for (as an OLDIE :-() is some similar model for 
income (tantiemes would they be called would I write book's, not 
software) :-)

   Hope this reminiscient mail is not too much OFF TOPIC on this group.

   I actually did already setup projects PP, ReyC, and LOGOS  on, but still reluctant to OPEN the SOURCE for NOTHING.

Best greetings from Vienna, Austria,
Thomas Schneider.
Am 16.08.2011 18:51, schrieb dennis byron:
> I haven't run the numbers in a few years but IBM Software Group 
> recognizes a large share of its revenue through "sales" to IBM Global 
> Services and/or via bundling into (boy, there's an old word--but I'm 
> an old guy) into sales of IBM systems.
> So the original claim is most likely still accurate. Sure applies to 
> the new Oracle and definitely all the companies that are now called 
> Infor. Probably not true yet for Symantec, Intuit and Sage but they'd 
> like to make it true. Microsoft is getting away from all software but 
> not to services as the term is typically used (more like the 
> timesharing--to drop another old word).
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexandre Terekhov" 
> <>
> To: "Ben Tilly" <>; "Tzeng, Nigel H." 
> <>
> Cc: "License Discuss" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Which DUAL Licence should I choose.
>> software sales than anything else. The other 9 all had
>> multiple revenue streams but made more money from software
>> consulting than anything else they did with software.
>> (Several, such as IBM, ...
> Eh, IBM?

> "Once the neglected stepchild of IBM's colossal services business and 
> systems unit, IBM Software is now a huge profit driver for Big Blue. 
> Indeed, IBM's Software Group now competes with IBM Global Services as 
> the top money maker for the company. Over the past decade, IBM has 
> transformed its business model as the company shifted to higher value 
> areas of software, improved efficiencies of its business and invested 
> in long-term opportunities. This slide show identifies 30 reasons why 
> software is big business at IBM."
> ----- Ursprüngliche Message -----
> Von: Ben Tilly <>
> An: "Tzeng, Nigel H." <>
> Cc: License Discuss <>
> Gesendet: 21:41 Montag, 8.August 2011
> Betreff: Re: Which DUAL Licence should I choose.
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. 
> <> wrote:
> [...]
>> While charging for software products may not be the only way to make 
>> money
>> on software, it is a/the dominant one and highly effective. There is 
>> also
>> middle ground between proprietary and F/LOSS. OSI can concede that
>> territory or not but CC has elected to embrace it and I think to good
>> benefit to their commons even with some legal nebulosity of the NC 
>> clause.
> [...]
> Really? A decade ago Karsten Self did an interesting analysis. He
> took the 10 largest software companies by revenue, and used public
> data streams to figure out the source of their revenue. Of the 10
> only one (Microsoft, at the time the biggest) made more money from
> software sales than anything else. The other 9 all had multiple
> revenue streams but made more money from software consulting than
> anything else they did with software. (Several, such as IBM, had
> significant hardware revenue. He excluded those revenue streams as
> well.)
> I would expect an attempt to repeat the analysis with current
> companies to come to similar conclusions. As a result I believe that
> the charging for software products is not the dominante way to make
> money from software. It is merely the most obvious and visible.
> But this is all a diversion. This list is meant for discussion about
> software licenses, and not discussions of software economics and
> politics. So I'll bow out of the discussion now.

Thomas Schneider (