So if we were to create a WebApp then it's perfectly okay for it to be closed, but as soon as we decide to write tools, then it has to be open?
As was mentioned in the previous post, we try our best to open source anything non-central to the core. We also try our best to document everything within the core and provide you the ability to extend and override anything, thus reducing any real need for the source to be open. We're even working on legalese to ensure that the source would be opened in any catastrophic event to the company. What else can we do?
Whether or not NOLOH is open has the same amount of impact on our users. If they have an issue they report it and we fix it, furthermore, they could override any functionality in the meantime if they so desired.
Essentially, it seems that you're arguing that nobody is allowed to charge for development tools anymore. We should just open it up, and donate all that time, money and R&D. If we want to eat we should be creating WebApps, rather than creating the tools to help you make yours.
> So if we were to create a WebApp then it's perfectly okay for it to be closed, but as soon as we decide to write tools, then it has to be open?
Ideally, yes.
> As was mentioned in the previous post, we try our best to open source anything non-central to the core.
Those parts are not relevant to the continuity of businesses and those parts will not benefit from being open from my point of view (many eyes, user contributions) as the core would.
> We also try our best to document everything within the core and provide you the ability to extend and override anything, thus reducing any real need for the source to be open.
For those parts where you decide that is the case.
> We're even working on legalese to ensure that the source would be opened in any catastrophic event to the company. What else can we do?
Open it up. Live dangerously. Look at where it took MySQL.
> Whether or not NOLOH is open has the same amount of impact on our users. If they have an issue they report it and we fix it, furthermore, they could override any functionality in the meantime if they so desired.
That's good.
> Essentially, it seems that you're arguing that nobody is allowed to charge for development tools anymore.
No, I never said that. You can keep it closed and charge as much as you want, but I would like it to be open source. Think of it as potential user feedback.
> We should just open it up, and donate all that time, money and R&D.
...
> If we want to eat we should be creating WebApps, rather than creating the tools to help you make yours.
Look, I understand exactly where you're coming from. I used to write licensed software for a living (the first version of the webcam software was a nice example, it did several hundred K in turnover annually at some point) but I've seen the writing on the wall and closed source is not going to be around forever for code such as this. Right now you have first mover advantage, you have a very solid codebase that you have put your time and effort in and if you can roll out fast enough and wide enough you can cement your position for the next 10 years or more.
By open sourcing it you cut off the route where some other group of smart guys with spare time on their hands looks at what NOLOH does and re-implements it. You don't create lock-in with tools the way Microsoft could do it with office, we're not talking about end-users, we're talking about developers here.
They already understand the way their job is done and to a very large extent that means that they've learned the downside of relying on closed source. And as a result plenty of them now have a very simple policy: Toolchain to create my product has to be open. Especially on the BSD and linux platforms, less so on Mac and Windows.
The stuff you've built is aimed squarely at that BSD and Linux fraction of the market, the portion where the resistance against closed source is going to be the strongest, you're building on top of PHP which itself is an open source product.
So the whole chain from OS, language, probably the db and the primary language is open, then you insert a DSL or middleware (however you want that to be classed) and you undo all that.
So you'll find some resistance to your policy. But I find the concepts embodied in NOLOH interesting enough that I've signed up for a trial license, so who knows, I might even overcome my dislike for your licensing policies.
Note that MySQL made some very good money by dual licensing their product and eventually a huge exit. It's not impossible.
Thank you for signing up for a trial license, and thank you for the mention in your recent blog post.
It's interesting you chose MySQL as an example, since they in fact didn't open-source everything, the Enterprise stuff as I recall was/is still closed.
Don't get me wrong, we would open source the core if we could, the problem we have with that is that we're not large enough to fend off a competing framework from implementing or cherry picking our technology, whether it's a direct copy, or a derivation. Once that's done, what's the incentive for anyone to try NOLOH? The more established tool may not feel the same, but on a comparison grid they would still be able to check off whatever feature we provide.
They may not have the vision, and the experience won't be the same, but for many users that won't matter.
I can see several possible routes out of that swamp:
- the ransom model
- find an investor that is able to fend off a competing framework in the marketplace (drupal has raised a fair amount of money on top of an open framework)
- take the plunge and drop licensing as your income stream in favor of another model
The reason why I picked MySQL is because I think they're the poster child for the situation you're in.
At this point you're trying to sell bibles to the satanists, you are aiming a closed source product squarely at the most die hard fanatic open source portion of the market.
The money is in the services, the (enterprise) support and the fame & glory related income (speaking engagements, that sort of thing), and if you want an enterprise version that technically should be classed as a freemium model.
The road you're on right now I can see enough frustration building on both sides of the divide (wannabe NOLOH users that insist on open source and yourselves) that at some point someone might just get up and build it. Then you've got even bigger problems. Open source is an ecosystem, if you want to play around in that ecosystem (and that's where you are) you can try to adapt to the ecosystem or you can - by virtue of the quality of your product and your unique value proposition - try to adapt the ecosystem to you.
Entities that resist the general trends and conventions in an ecosystem are usually called food ;)
I'm not aware of any company that has successfully managed to do that outside of the CAD/CAM world (varicad, specifically) and even that is not strictly speaking a developer tool.
If NOLOH is as great as it seems to be then the open source route would probably be the more profitable one in the longer term, even if in the shorter term it would mean a complete loss of license income. The 'ransom' model might get you over that hump.
As was mentioned in the previous post, we try our best to open source anything non-central to the core. We also try our best to document everything within the core and provide you the ability to extend and override anything, thus reducing any real need for the source to be open. We're even working on legalese to ensure that the source would be opened in any catastrophic event to the company. What else can we do?
Whether or not NOLOH is open has the same amount of impact on our users. If they have an issue they report it and we fix it, furthermore, they could override any functionality in the meantime if they so desired.
Essentially, it seems that you're arguing that nobody is allowed to charge for development tools anymore. We should just open it up, and donate all that time, money and R&D. If we want to eat we should be creating WebApps, rather than creating the tools to help you make yours.