Subject: Re: commercial / proprietary
From: (David N. Welton)
Date: 17 Feb 2005 21:49:39 +0100

"Anderson, Kelly" <> writes:

> It might be just as interesting to list companies that DID NOT
> release their software to open source that are now DEAD as a
> doornail.

There could be hundreds of reasons why companies fail, both open
source and non.

That line of discussion might be of great interest to those companies'
clients, but I'm a developer.  As such, I'm curious what sort of
products were released as open source, not as a feel good move, but
with some sort of strategy behind it, and what that strategy was.

After looking at a few posts, and pondering it some myself, I'd be
willing to wager a few guesses:

*) Firms that could not otherwise break into a market.  Could we also
   say that this market has to *not* be saturated with open source
   solutions (unless the new product is really hot)?

*) Firms that have the skills to make money on consulting/contracting
   work.  This one seems crucial.  It would be interesting to hear how
   people have faced the transition of working on code to doing
   consulting - there are a lot of gifted coders that might not make
   great consultants, and vice versa.  And to be profitable, a
   consulting group needs to be doing work, not twiddling code.  I
   suppose there's also the risk that a small company or individual
   might risk having someone better at services eat most of their

David N. Welton

Apache, Linux, Tcl Consulting