Re: software collectives

So, you are putting together a personal "time management" package. I hope for your sake that you are not intending to make a living off this package. </sarcasm>

Well actually, yeah! But it's not time mgt and the software is something of a "monkey's paw", since it catalyzes a process that requires additional hw/sw/services. (It has to do with transcription of dictated text, content eminently suitable to manipulation by Perl. :-) And I'm expecting that people in a position similar to me can resell my package to lead to further sales for themselves.

Unless you are intending to produce this code as open source, ..., I would recommend not writing a single line of code until you have confirmed interest from some prospective customers.

Are you saying that open source implies I will be tossing away any financial benefit so that I don't have to worry about making money from my project -or- are you saying that open source can help tap into this large market of prospective customers such that it would be a smart way to release? I'm a bit stuck at this point since, having developed in Perl, my code will be visible in one way or another to those that insist on looking. But do I use this fact as a feature--"open source by choice"--or do I fight this fact with sanctions in my license agreement against peeking? I've invested a lot in getting my software to its current state and I need to generate a return.

I'm concerned about WHEN my application will attract competition from more capable developers (much less an independent open source project! :-) and so I want to build market share and reseller allegiance as quickly as possible, ideally improving the software along the way based on appropriate feedback. Thus improved, I could handle competition much better. Would open-sourcing this to get feedback from developers help or hurt, and would anyone even contribute if their suggestions go into a product that benefits me financially? (Though I'd be all too happy to pay for software advances that make the product sell better.)

Do your market research first. ... There have been many instances of people becoming over enthusiastic and unrealistic.

Well I'm prone to that :-), but I've also been involved in this application area for a couple of years and seen users and pilots fail for lack of what I'm now supplying. (My opinion, anyway.) I've been getting some usability feedback over the summer from some prospective users (pro AND con) and I think I'm on track.

In terms of hospitals etc. clubbing together for procurement. This actually happens I believe, but you need to understand their meta-infrastructure, and work out at what level (county, state, federal, etc.) these recommendations are made.

From my perspective, I'd just as soon each one acts independently and buys separate rights to the software. It just seems to me that they would save themselves a whole lot of money in the first place if they missioned someone to develop such a package for their collective benefit. Electronic Medical Records systems (EMR) come to mind as naturals for such attention. If a hospital put in their two cents for such a system, and something credible developed, they wouldn't even have to implement it--just use it for leverage in paying for their first-choice package!

As for governments, might there even be legislation in the U.S. which discourages/forbids governments from colluding with each other in areas where the private sector can be expected to provide? Such would seem like an irresponsible use of my tax dollars, at least where software development is concerned.

Comment on Re: software collectives

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: software collectives by rinceWind (Monsignor) on Oct 23, 2002 at 09:53 UTC
... the software is something of a "monkey's paw", since it catalyzes a process that requires additional hw/sw/services. Nice trick if you can pull it off. It depends on how canny your target audience is. Selling consultancy on the back of a loss leading software package is standard practice, and justifies how many of us can spend work time on open source projects. Would open-sourcing this to get feedback from developers help or hurt, and would anyone even contribute if their suggestions go into a product that benefits me financially? That depends precisely on the kind of licence you issue with the software. It is worth looking at existing licence templates, such as the GNU General Public Licence, and the Artistic Licence - and others. In terms of your dilemma - to open source or not to open source, this is a question of the tanstaafl argument. If you want to charge for your software, people working for you will expect to be paid. As for governments, might there even be legislation in the U.S. which discourages/forbids governments from colluding with each other in areas where the private sector can be expected to provide? I admit my ignorance about the American due process when it comes to government procurement. The situation in the UK is quite different, as authorities do tend to work together, at least in principle, in the collective aim of saving money.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: software collectives
by rinceWind (Monsignor) on Oct 23, 2002 at 09:53 UTC

... the software is something of a "monkey's paw", since it catalyzes a process that requires additional hw/sw/services.

Would open-sourcing this to get feedback from developers help or hurt, and would anyone even contribute if their suggestions go into a product that benefits me financially?

In terms of your dilemma - to open source or not to open source, this is a question of the tanstaafl argument. If you want to charge for your software, people working for you will expect to be paid.

As for governments, might there even be legislation in the U.S. which discourages/forbids governments from colluding with each other in areas where the private sector can be expected to provide?

[reply]