Subject: Ideas for business models for hspell-like projects

From: Omer Zak <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 02:19:50 +0300 (EET DST)

Let's consider a project similar to hspell in the following
characteristics:
1. It utilizes Free Software, and the resulting software is Free as well.
2. The project relies upon a large database of information.
3. There is a mechanism for people to contribute to the database.

The following considrations exist as well:
1. The software developer/s would like to be able to make a living from
   the software one way or other.  The users would benefit from this as
   well, because the developer/s would be able to work fulltime on
   improvements to the software and the database.
2. Some mechanism is needed to prevent rogue users from "poisoning" the
   database with bad data.  Yet moderation by the project owners is not
   feasible.
3. Some barrier of entry is desired to make it difficult for other people
   to fork the project's database and get people to contribute only to
   their clone of the database (forking the software is not a problem,
   but forking the database is a problem).

Then, my questions are:
1. How would one organize the project to accomplish all the above
   objectives?
2. What (if at all) business model/s can be used to allow the developers
   to make decent living from the software?
   (Note that dual-licensing, like the approach taken by MySQL AB,
   TrollTech, etc. is not possible here, because Free Software is used in
   the project.)
3. What can be used to motivate people to contribute (correct) data to the
   database?

The above is meant to be general discussion (although I have a specific
project in mind).
                                             --- Omer
My opinions, as expressed in this E-mail message, are mine alone.
They do not represent the official policy of any organization with which
I may be affiliated in any way.
WARNING TO SPAMMERS:  at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 09:52:54 +0300

> 3. There is a mechanism for people to contribute to the database.

How exactly does Hspell fit into these characterstics?
#3 doesn't really fit, and #1 only fits if you consider something written
in Perl to be "utilizes free software" (and, well, I also took some hash-
table code from TCL to support "personal dictionary", but this can easily
be replaced by something else).

But I guess your questions are good for a discussion for "hspell-like
projects that are not Hspell :)

>    improvements to the software and the database.

This is not relevant with the current Hspell authors, who did not plan
to make money from it. If somebody wants to pay us it would be nice, but
our "business model" when we started this project did not assume turning
a profit after some sort of time period.

You are right, though, that if this project started generating income,
its development would be accelerated.

>    database with bad data.  Yet moderation by the project owners is not

Currently, moderation of the project owners *is* feasible. It makes the
project go slightly slower, but I think no too slowly.

>    but forking the database is a problem).

In Hspell, the word database is explicitly declared GPL. Whether this makes
any legal sense at all I do not know, but we at least tried. This means that
nobody should be able to fork the word database without us being able to
get the resulting "fruit" back. Of course it also means that someone else
can make money (with some sort of business model) from working on it instead
of us - but this sort of forking is possible in any free software, and is
a major problem in any free software business model.

>    TrollTech, etc. is not possible here, because Free Software is used in

Dual licensing *is* possible if the only way the project uses free software
is by running it. You can have a commercial Perl program - the fact that
Perl is involved in running a program doesn't make it GPL.

Also, if free-software is only used in the build stages of the program,
not by the binary executable, you can argue that distributing binaries to
non-GPL licencess is perfectly fine.

One potential business model we can have is to sell Hspell integration into
commercial software (and in-house software, search engines, etc.) that
doesn't want to high pay licensing fees that the commercial competitors
require. The barrier to entry for other people is:
 1. They don't know as much about hspell as we do (but if it was imporant
    enough for them, they could...)
 2. They cannot give a license for a commercial company to use Hspell inside
    their own program (hspell is GPL, not LGPL). We can. Well, actually we
    can once we take out the small bit of Ousterhoust code I mentioned
    earlier.

> 3. What can be used to motivate people to contribute (correct) data to the

If the attitude of the project owner is believed by the public to be "I'm
making small-change needed to run this project and really helping the
community in the meanwhile", the public might still consider helping without
expecting anything in return. If however the public thinks the owner "Is
making huge profits from the public contributions", it will actually take
some *money* for the public to help. See for example Amazon.com's associate
program - where the public helps Amazon (by linking to it) and gets some
small amounts of money in return.

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |      Saturday, Sep 20 2003, 23 Elul 5763
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-790466, ICQ 13349191 |It's fortunate I have bad luck - without
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |it I would have no luck at all!

---

From: "Tzahi Fadida" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 13:21:11 +0200

from what i understand the QT libs from trolltech are GPL, and if you wish to
incorporate them
into your commercial software you must request the owner(trolltech) to give you
permission to do that. I.e: pay me money and i will give you the permission.
I am sure they have measures, but,...
I did not really understand this concept because if its GPL, i can take it and
add my name on the top and also sell it. i.e: take qt libs, change a letter in
the page, add my name, sell half price.
how do they prevent this?
also, why can't you employ the same method to the database, i.e: if someone
wants to sell it, then he needs your permission.

regarding submittion of data and how to determine its validity, you actually
mean "Reputation", i.e: reputation mechanisms. These are very documented, and
there are many articles you can find on citeseer.

if you have patented algorithms or algorithms that you want to remain yours, you
can make them closed source and call them from the GPLed software, or exempt
them from the GPL, and by this create a new license.

another solution that i was thinking about for our technion project OPCAT is to
release it under GPL or LGPL and but exempt the patent of OPM itself, this way,
if you even want to draw OPM models on paper for commercial uses you have to get
permission from the patent owner, i.e: pay him.

I think its hard to make a lot of money from open source software, look at
redhat, its not that they don't earn good money, its just that its not a lot.
i.e: they earn ~240k$  clean profit and 3m$ "brutto" last quarter but thats just
"Agorot" compared to closed sourced companies.

I think that the best method to earn money from open soureced software is
patenting algorithms and methods of your own and charge money for commercial
purposes, all the rest should remain free and opened.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nadav Har'El [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 8:53 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [hackers-il] Ideas for business models for hspell-like projects
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2003, Omer Zak wrote about "[hackers-il] Ideas for
> business models for hspell-like projects":
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email-masked]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

---

From: Alexander Maryanovsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 13:33:34 +0200

>wants to sell it, then he needs your permission.

Umm, when Trolltech "sells" it, they are not doing it under the GPL - the 
license is obviously one that would allow the buyer to make any changes and 
redistribute them without releasing their own source. You, on the other 
hand, are not allowed to relicense the Qt code, since you don't own it... 
adding your name at the top doesn't make the original code yours, it only 
makes the new (with your name on it) code *partially* yours, but you're 
still not allowed to relicense it (without Trolltech's permission). On the 
other hand, nobody is allowed to relicense your "new" code without your 
permission either.

Alexander Maryanovsky.

At 13:21 20.09.2003 +0200, Tzahi Fadida wrote:
> > <http://nadav.harel.org.il>http://nadav.harel.org.il           |it I 
> would have no luck at all!
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>ADVERTISEMENT
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the 
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 23:00:11 +0300 (IDT)

> how do they prevent this?

They don't. But selling Qt is one thing and incorporating it into your own
proprietary project is another. The first is possible with every open
source product, but doesn't make too much economic sense because the
product is freely distributable. The second is not legal for GPL software
, without the copyright owner exempting you from the GPL. and this is the
Troll Tech model. (i.e: they are selling the rights to incorporate the
software into a proprietary product).

> wants to sell it, then he needs your permission.

That would make the database non-open-source. An open-source database
should be freely distributable and sellable for any price. Of course, a
GPL program can rely on proprietary data, so it is possible.

> them from the GPL, and by this create a new license.

The GPL explictly forbids using patents that are not Readily-Available and
Non-Discriminatory. "Closed" patents are disallowed, and it would make
your software non-GPL compatible.

> permission from the patent owner, i.e: pay him.

Again, that would make your software non-GPL-compatible.

> "Agorot" compared to closed sourced companies.

To _some_ closed source companies. Most vendors of proprietary software
are not very successful. In fact, I think Microsoft controls somewhere
over 50% of the software market.

As pointed out in "The Magic Cauldron" the majority of code in the world
is for various kinds of in-house use. (embedded,

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish        [email-masked]
Home Page:         http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/

An apple a day will keep a doctor away. Two apples a day will keep two
doctors away.

	Falk Fish