Hi,
It is quite simple. Many consultants and companies will find it
profitable to contribute to the LiveCode engine. RunRev can use these
contributions and include them in the commercial version of LiveCode.
This way, the commercially available engine will develop more quickly,
which makes it more attractive to everybody and RunRev can sell more
commercial licenses.
As an economist, you know that co-operation between two parties allows
them to have complete information, which makes the market more
efficient. An open-source licence makes free exchange of information
between all involved parties possible. Of course, this is only one of
many possible explanations.
Oh... btw I'm just trying to give you a clue. I don't mean to
participate in an endless discussion on economic viability :-)
--
Best regards,
Mark Schonewille
Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering
Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/xtalkprogrammer
KvK: 50277553
Use Color Converter to convert CMYK, RGB, RAL, XYZ, H.Lab and other colour
spaces. http://www.color-converter.com
We have time for new software development projects. Contact me for a quote.
On 14 January, we suffered severe server problems. If you tried to send an
e-mail between 13 and 18 January and didn't get a reply, please try again.
On 2/1/2013 18:48, Dr. Hawkins wrote:
I'll preface this with that I am quite familiar with open source, have
a Ph.D. in Economics, and published the first paper that actually
explained why and when open sourcing software or backing open source
solutions can make solid commercial sense.
I'm not quite seeing that here.
Apple really sells hardware, and distinguishes Darwin with OS/X on top of it.
IBM really sells served web pages, and would get no advantage, just
more costs, from a proprietary unix or server, thus massively backs
Linux & Apache.
Is netscape really still around?
Sun needed an office suite that would run on their unix, and wouldn't
be able to charge a larger total price for calling OpenOffice a
separate product; the market they saw was server + light workstations
+ stuff to run.
The closest I see is redhat's commercial side.
But are there enough developers that would pay for support? Some of
us (most?) will; the thousand or two a year is a small part of our
expenses if we're full time (and in my case, is one or two annual
licenses for my own product).
Boosting sales of web serving (I don't see that working on the
commercial side, though; pricing, etc. isn't even close to competitive
for just serving, and how many *need* that extra bit of livecode
maintenance on the server?)
I love the idea, and particularly the inevitable early open source
change of switching from single monolithic files to some sort of
revision control for our stacks. And some of the customization I
would want.
But I just can't see where the revenue stream that keeps livecode
around will be.
hawk
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
