Hi - We're developing a CRM suite for use in the non-profit sector. To keep costs down, we're heavily discounting our own services, and hoping to build on Open Source platforms.
However, to provide top quality support and documentation, we're intending to keep ownership of the bit we build.
It looks like XOOPS would make an excellent part of the foundation.
If we develop modules for XOOPS that are not open-source, where do we stand in relation to the 'free' license?
If we end up selling our product at 'cost price' to charities, where do we stand?
If we end up selling commercially (and raking in the dosh) where do we stand?
Would you rely on our generosity/honesty to make appropriate donations, or would you prefer something more formal?
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this,
Best wishes, Dr. Jon Bowen

I am no expert in these matters, but I think the conclusion to previous questions like this is that when you develop code, which cannot work without an underlying Open Source system, the code itself also must be released with the same license, i.e. the GNU GPL license.

You can charge for the services you provide, but not the code itself.

Hi

There's a link about licensing of new modules available here. Also, the GPL license terms are worth a read.

Regards

Simon

OK, seems I was wrong - but still, as the FAQ says, it is probably not going to bring in the dough due to your product being source code.

Personally, I am very splitted in the pay-for-modules issue. On one hand, I do think that I can make some good modules, which are worth money - but on the other hand, I would really like more modules out there, which I can look at and copy bits, pieces and approaches to enhance my own works.

Seems that a viable solution is to make a module, charge money for the first couple of months, then release it to the general public.

What you should also keep in mind is that I personally expect a high degree of quality and support if I pay money for something. If you cannot supply that, you'll see your customers run away faster than a camel, which has just seen a man with two bricks.

Thanks for your thoughts here, it's more flexible than I thought.
I'm not aiming to be the next Siebel Systems, I'm just a one-man show with some friends trying to get good IT systems into non-profit organisations, without starving to death in the process!
I'm expecting to make an investment of about £60,000 in this CRM, and hope to recoup this with 12 charity customers over the next 2 - 3 years. (I can't possibly afford to make that kind of investment and give away the results). If it works and it's popular I may well make it generally available, and just charge for the documentation (something which (see other post) is sadly behind schedule in the open source world), and support.
Best wishes, Jon Bowen

Quote:

Too true...we're workin' on it

You should consider charging for your service, not the actual software. I try and educate the people I work for with the following.

1. Using open source over the long run will decrease your cost of buying technology.
2. It doesn't matter if you use open source or buy software you still need some technical man power to get any software set up and working properly.
3. Intelectual property does not lie in the lines of code, but in the geeks who can make it do wonderful things and the creativity of the business people who put it to work.

Simply put: Don't sell the code, sell the nerd who will set up the code, configure the site, and train the client to use it.

That's what I do, open source nerd for hire.

If you look at the licensing/pricing of commercial apps, I think you will be pleasantly surprised by what you find. The initial software costs are always a fraction of the actual startup costs. These used to be "baked in" to the selling price, but competition has forced them to make the sales price lower and add extra line items for installation, customization, configuration, support, and maintenance. These are the items that you can (and should) always charge for. Giving away the initial product is no big deal if you can make your money with the services you provide.

There might be a few organizations that will implement your product without paying for any services, but they probably have very limited needs (and no budget) anyway. Even those places may need to hire you in the future, and if they are using your code, you have a huge marketing advantage over other companies when they go looking for help. OTOH, if you decide to bail and not provide any more support or updates sometime in the future, the code you worked so hard to create is not wasted, but can be picked up by others if it's worthwhile for them to use it. That's the value proposition of open source software.

If the non-profits understand the value your code provides and the added value that you bring, I expect most all of them will want to hire you for the services you provide, knowing that their needs will figure prominantly in future upgrades and they will be benefiting other NPO's in addition to the value the receive. This seems like an especially easy sell to a non-profit, as they are less concerned about their expertise being re-used by their "competitors".

And as another benefit, if your code is open sourced, you will automatically get a lot of good will from experienced PHP/XOOPS coders who you might need help from in the future. It's always nicer to have friends than competitors, IMO.

Good luck with your project!

Dennis

The GPL states you can make commercial modules for a GLPéd system, but when you release them, they have to be distributed under the same licence. This is because the modules are considered part of the whole application, as they cannot function without the core system.

Practically, this means you can develop modules for XOOPS in a commercial way, but not sell them in the proprietary systems way: sell rights of use. You're selling the module itself, code, use, everything included. So, if you distribute (not meaning giving it to the client that ordered the module the first time), you are bound to do that by the GPL. You can ask for money, but if that buyer wants to offer it for free, he/she is free to do so.

I hope this makes it more clear

Herko

Perhaps a little dictionary explanation/definition of the words

Commercial module
Distribute
Release

If I read you correctly, I (Or anyone else) can make a module and charge a fee for giving it to someone else - but the customer is free to do whatever he or she wants to do with the software, including placing it for free download on his or her own site.

Is that the essence of it?