Are you considering to make SoftMaker products open source to get more community support and localization assistance?
SoftMaker products are great, however I believe, a model similar to OpenOffice and StarOffice, will definitely make SoftMaker products more recognized than now.
Thanks.
making SoftMaker products open source
Currently we don't consider to make our products open source as we only have one source for all platforms. On some platforms there is a lot of know how we would lose if we go open source. We have a lot of great programmers for our software for mobile devices and this is a lot of know how we don't want to lose or give up. Hopefully you can understand why we don't want to go open source.
Tobias Leißner
SoftMaker Software GmbH
SoftMaker Software GmbH
Definitely, this is a different business model, therefore I understand the situation. There are some successful models though like MySQL, StarOffice, etc.
However, it is worth to consider, at least for the sake of easy localisation.
Also community support is worth to consider for the long run to become prominent.
Aim big, get big!
However, it is worth to consider, at least for the sake of easy localisation.
Also community support is worth to consider for the long run to become prominent.
Aim big, get big!
this is a strange way of thinking:
but i believe that if we have a reasonable number of closed-source proprietory businesses and application
- that could send the positivie message at least for Linux
that open-source is not an absolute must.
Definitely a lot of software-houses coming to Linux are met with a lot of pressures.
Some get abusive emails. One game-company was nice enough to go through the massive effort of having a port for both Mac and Linux
and was met with daily emails calling them an "evil empire" as they weren't ready to go GPL.
I say we have a healthy mix of both - to at least send the message - don't fear Linux it is not hostile whatever the business model.
Having said that - sometimes going open source can help a business out (look at mozilla/netscape, staroffice/open-office, redhat/fedora, realplayer/helix)
.. at other times it could be their demise (dare I say solaris? but then again it's too soon and they count as truly gpl)
but i believe that if we have a reasonable number of closed-source proprietory businesses and application
- that could send the positivie message at least for Linux
that open-source is not an absolute must.
Definitely a lot of software-houses coming to Linux are met with a lot of pressures.
Some get abusive emails. One game-company was nice enough to go through the massive effort of having a port for both Mac and Linux
and was met with daily emails calling them an "evil empire" as they weren't ready to go GPL.
I say we have a healthy mix of both - to at least send the message - don't fear Linux it is not hostile whatever the business model.
Having said that - sometimes going open source can help a business out (look at mozilla/netscape, staroffice/open-office, redhat/fedora, realplayer/helix)
.. at other times it could be their demise (dare I say solaris? but then again it's too soon and they count as truly gpl)
MySQL posted very high revenues in FY04. That means this business model works perfect for great products. Therefore it is worthed to consider.
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/pr ... 04_35.html
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/pr ... 04_35.html
Databases are much more "corporate" and more complex so companies may be willing to pay up for support. Doubt the same could be said for a spreadsheet or a word processing software.
I totally agree with hgilbert. Having some commercial applications in open source operating systems sends the message to companies that it's a market worth developing for.
Those "crusaders" that literally push away companies because they don't want to open source their work are simply giving open source OSs a bad name.
I totally agree with hgilbert. Having some commercial applications in open source operating systems sends the message to companies that it's a market worth developing for.
Those "crusaders" that literally push away companies because they don't want to open source their work are simply giving open source OSs a bad name.
There is one software I really think should be made open-source
That is Revolution.
It is educational and teaches the principle of object oriented programming.
But by being closed source (and somewhat expensive for the curious person to buy more for playing than serious programming .. millions of people and children are denied the chance to learn from it.
The company would (I believe) be way more profitable by offering support, courses, books and material.
Shame that the Scottish credited for refining the Prolog computer language should be such an Uncle Scroodge this time.
Borland allows anyone to download Kylix for GPL use.
And JBuilder for non-commercial use.
Eiffel the same.
Even Microsoft let people download Visual C++ and ASP.NET (Webmatrix) for free.
Not GPL .. but a lot of stuff are public: Win32 API, and ECMA C#
[ok rant over]
With the case of SoftMaker is different.
Should they open-source their code - immediately they would go broke.
That is Revolution.
It is educational and teaches the principle of object oriented programming.
But by being closed source (and somewhat expensive for the curious person to buy more for playing than serious programming .. millions of people and children are denied the chance to learn from it.
The company would (I believe) be way more profitable by offering support, courses, books and material.
Shame that the Scottish credited for refining the Prolog computer language should be such an Uncle Scroodge this time.
Borland allows anyone to download Kylix for GPL use.
And JBuilder for non-commercial use.
Eiffel the same.
Even Microsoft let people download Visual C++ and ASP.NET (Webmatrix) for free.
Not GPL .. but a lot of stuff are public: Win32 API, and ECMA C#
[ok rant over]
With the case of SoftMaker is different.
Should they open-source their code - immediately they would go broke.