Subject: Re: Paying for development on a services model?
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:11:54 +0900

>>>>> "Christian" == Christian Robottom Reis <kiko@async.com.br> writes:

    Christian> The idea is quite simple: provide a basic software
    Christian> package that has some functionality, and charge for
    Christian> customization and porting. This is, of course, the
    Christian> original Cygnus model.

Hey!  Nice wheel!  I think we should name it ... versioning.  :-(

"Versioning" is not "what Microsoft does."  "Versioning" is selling
different packages of the same basic product at different prices,
based on willingness-to-pay rather than cost.

This describes the Cygnus model quite well.  The fact that the "fancy"
or "ported" package is made to order rather than shrink-wrapped
doesn't keep "versioning" from being the correct description.

BTW, note that like Ghostscript, Cygnus's main products were tied to
hardware quite closely (gcc).  Their main revenue stream was from
hardware complementers who have revenue streams protected by barriers
to entry, which is not generally applicable.  Eg, the Cygnus model
simply won't work with Java apps (except on "Microsoft Java," hmm),
since any Java development funded will become instantly available to
all competitors (unless you dual license, a la Aladdin vs. GNU
Ghostscript).

And AFAIK Code Fusion was _never_ freed by Cygnus.  Doesn't that tell
you something about where Cygnus thought their model of FSB was
applicable?

-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
	  Don't ask how you can "do" free software business;
	  ask what your business can "do for" free software.