Subject: Re: Open Source -> Closed Source
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 19:51:32 +0900

>>>>> "Kelly" == Kelly Anderson <KAnderson@dentrix.com> writes:

    Kelly> In other words, using open source as a startup marketing
    Kelly> "gimick", then finally releasing the program through closed
    Kelly> source once market acceptance is up to a certain level.

I think it's rarely a gimmick.  More like a hobby that turns into a
business.

    Kelly> Also, if the proprietary company were to try and trademark
    Kelly> the previously open source name of the project, that would
    Kelly> bring up a whole set of interesting questions.

I think they'd have trouble doing so effectively, precisely because
the name was left open to anybody who used the app.  But maybe a
lawyer who knows what he/she is talking about could comment?

    Kelly> Will projects like JasperSoft loose more in the PR world of
    Kelly> public opinion than they could have made by staying open
    Kelly> source?

No, unless you're talking about hurt feelings.

    Kelly> Do you folks see the open source->proprietary jump in the
    Kelly> same light as the freeware->payware jump for these past
    Kelly> freeware (free as in beer) projects?

No.  Freeware _is_ a marketing gimmick, and of course you expect them
to take the next step in marketing.  Taking open source closed is "so
long, and thanks for all the fish."  Higher life forms don't bother
with the half-evolved humans after that.  :-)

On the other hand, we do get to keep, reuse, modify, and redistribute
the fish.  A pretty good deal, all-in-all, though it could be better.

-- 
School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.