[Slightly OT] Ransomware as a Model for Rev Toolmaking?

Chipp Walters chipp at chipp.com
Tue Jul 19 16:07:43 EDT 2005


Brian, I agree with you. Especially about the 'multiple owners' part. 
Having 1 or 2 partners isn't bad, but too many more and Chris is right 
about 'the camel.'

But, that being said, I do think it can work out where everyone has 
ownership of the code and can do what they want with it outside of 
certain boundries.

IMO, I think the developer needs to at least make his hourly wage. 
Hopefully, he'll make more with future revenues based on his code.

Overall, the concept of 'selling your idea' first, garnering some cash 
support, and then building a product, isn't bad. Outside of the 
ownership issues you bring up, and basic issues of trust, there is room 
for this concept to work.

best,

Chipp

Brian Yennie wrote:
> Not to make this a debate, but...
> 
> What I don't like about the system below (and why I think it hasn't 
> happened already to any great extent) is:
> * Investors will have to put a lot more money up for the developer to 
> give up ownership of the product to the investors
> * Multiple investors "owning" a product and dividing profits is a pain 
> (and not so lucrative)
> 
> Rather, I think it's good to drive down the initial cost (so people will 
> actually buy in), and allow *someone* to have some real profit 
> potential, as I don't think a 3rd party Rev product split too many ways 
> excites anyone just yet.



More information about the use-livecode mailing list