Still no new license -- but draft text available

[Alex Martelli]

"Olivier Dagenais" <olivierS.dagenaisP at canadaA.comM> wrote in message
news:9Mlm5.137469$1h3.2581004 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > What the other "different" ways of differentiating yourself from your
> > > competitors?  Where can I read up on the "answer of Ford/Lincoln/
> > > Mercury"?
> > In textbooks about marketing, and specifically that segment of it
> > known as brand-building (though not only there).  But why would
> > you care...?
>
> Again, as a one-man-band, I (currently) have to research all ramifications
> of the software development cycle.

OK, so you may need some grounding on marketing, I guess (and don't
envy you).  Most of what you'll find on bookstore shelves is highly
debatable and probably does not apply to the successful marketing of
*software* specifically.  I'd start with Eric Raymond's "Magic Cauldron"
essay -- while debatable, it's probably the best groundwork on the
economics of software that's been published yet; and, whatever the
"occult persuaders" may say or imply in an attempt to make themselves
look more important and powerful than they really are, you can't swim
for long against the tide of fundamentals by compensating with just
chrome (hmmm, mixed metaphor, I guess).


In any case, these product-differentiation/brand-building exercises
have little to do with your expressed concerns:

> Since the software I am developing is
> some sort of "system" (not to use the word "platform"), I am considering
> releasing the "system" part of it as open-source, but I don't want anybody
> taking it, calling it theirs, selling it and suing me for infringing on
> their newly-acquired copyright/patent or some other stupid legal
acrobatics
> trick that would ruin my business for my trying to be nice.

...which are strictly legal ones.  In theory, by publishing your work
(rather than relying on trade-secret, probably the weakest prong of the
intellectual-property legislative fork), you give yourself the best of
guarantees against anybody claiming copyrights or patents on your work;
"prior art", which your publication would establish, being the strongest
defense in patent issues -- and publication itself establishing _your_
copyright on the published work.  In practice, your paranoia may well be
justifiable, but it should hold just as much (or more) for a work that
is 'protected' (and I use the word loosely) by trade-secret, which really
IS that weak.  If secrecy of your sources is all the intellectual property
protection you have, then somebody else might be much better placed to
apply for a patent (maybe after reverse-engineering your work, which may
or may not be legal [jurisdictions differ] but is hard for you to prove).
But in the end, only the courts matter here -- even a lawyer can just give
you non-binding advice.

The marketing issues are totally different, and unconnected with any
suits that might be brought against you.  Basically, the fear on the
marketing front would be of somebody just about _cloning_ your work,
and trying to beat you in the marketplace by packaging it better,
selling it cheaper, advertising their own brand for the product, or
other marketing ploys.  The courts would not be involved unless YOU
tried suing them to stop them winning in the marketplace (if you had
patent protection that might be worth trying, but then publication
would not weaken your patent -- on the contrary, patents ARE to be
published, by definition; trade-secret or copyright are much weaker
this way; trademarks would be a good weapon in the courts for you, if
they were violating them, but such violation would not occur in the
typical repackage/sell-cheaper/advertise scenario you might fear).

Just don't think that keeping your sources secret is worth much in
this case -- there are enough jurisdictions where reverse engineering
IS legal, and cleanroom re-engineering is also always a possibility.


> > If technical support is seen as a profit center, and quality
enhancements
> > are undesired because of effects on those profits, the company is in
> > serious trouble anyway -- competitors with a more flexible attitude and
> > higher quality are going to eat its lunch pretty soon, I predict.
>
> Agreed, but you never know with huge companies...
>
> Monopoly-conspiracy-theories-abound-ly y'rs,

As an old-time fan of Robert Anton Wilson's fiction and non-fiction, I
enjoy a good old conspiracy theory at least as much as anybody else --
*did* the Bavarian Illuminati poison Pope Luciani, is "Microsoft" in
fact a front for the Skulls Society, and where does the Trilateral
Commission get into the picture?  But I suggest one tries not to let
one's business and technical decisions be unwarrantedly influenced by
one's literary tastes...


Alex