Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)

[David Bovill]

On 07/06/07, Richard Gaskin <ambassador at fourthworld.com> wrote:
>
> David, I think you may have answered the "How do we pay the piper?"
> question here:


I think it's along the right lines - I think there are opportunities
regarding the Linux version etc.

The folks at Base Camp have visibility, but do revenues match?


Your guess is as good as mine. The real question is are 37Signals making
more money than RunRev? Which company is in a better position with regard to
future profits and investors?

It's hard to quantify but my guess would be that RunRevs software is an
order of magnitude more complex than Ruby on Rails, that there startup
investment was lower, and their valuation an order of magnitude higher.

I can not really see why RunRev could not have done this with the code base
they own. Indeed it would be relatively easy to produce a Rails like web
environment in Rev - plus some. Rails was never easy to install and there
needed to be and now is an explosion of hosting companies setting up
services - the same could have happened with Rev CGI

I am not suggesting a pure Rails copy - but something that makes more use of
Rev features. From my experience of the open source market - there would
have been a very significant number of very talented coders that would have
killed to have a go at the C++ code - if it were open - though I'd guess
that there are commercial libraries used that would make this a little
tricky.

A very carefully chosen license (hopefully more clearly communicated
> than MySQL's) might well be the ticket for Rev.


There is scope for creativity here - indeed you could even think of a new
type of license if needed. Or simply start a process in which the core
language - lets say for the CGI engine (plus) is open sourced, and there is
a subscription based process where you get the latest commercial extensions,
IDE, dual license and support for the current license fee. Over time there
could be a two way flow, with older commercial features becoming part of the
open source engine, and the best of some of the open source side being
improved on and offered in the commercial package under a closed license.

Enforcement is a difficult thing with dual licensing, and I'm not sure
> how one would go about it when the source is freely available without
> relying primarily on litigation.  Litigation is perhaps the most costly
> form of license enforcement. :)


Is it? I have no hard evidence on this - but my guess would be that there is
significantly less fraudulent use of dual licensed software than there is of
closed source applications (which is very very common). I also doubt that
MySQL have had need to incur higher legal costs than any other comparable
closed source database company.