Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:44:12 -0700
From: Bob Leif
To: Robin Reagan et al.
The good part of the Microsoft marketing model is appropriate. Keep the
prices low and amortize the costs over a very large group of customers. In
the case of an Ada cooperative development project, the upfront costs will
be very low compared to the current practice. I have proposed to treat
software developers as authors and to compensate them by royalties based on
sales and contribution to the final product. Since Ada development permits
this approach, we would have a tremendous advantage over companies that
employ the conventional model of software development. For instance,
Microsoft has to maintain a very large number of buildings and has a large
The use of the Internet for distribution and a high quality product at low
prices are real commercial advantages. I have already stated (1) why open
source to be of very significant benefit to the software vendor. I also
should note that I believe that it would be beneficial for a developer or
company to make their Ada product available to all of the members of
Team-Ada for personal use. However, if someone creates a product that both
uses a developer's software and has significant sales, then the developer
should receive royalties (2).
1. R. C. Leif, “SIGAda ‘98, Workshop: How do We Expedite the Commercial Use
of Ada?.” Ada letters XIX, No 1 pp. 28-39 (1999).
68. R. C. Leif, “Ada Developers Cooperative License (Draft) Version 0.3”,
Ada letters XIX, No 1 pp. 97..107 (1999).
From: Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Robin Reagan
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 3:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Ada RTOS.
At 01:29 PM 6/9/00 -0500, you wrote:
> > > The "high level of support" is where the money can be made (See ACT).
> > I am assuming you are referring to the fact that ACT is not cheap.
>ACT's support charges are way too high for a "private citizen." But
>compared to other vendors that I will not name, ACT works for peanuts.
>And ACT's support (during the short period I had it) was the best I had
>gotten from anywhere.
I don't have any problems with ACTs business model. The software is free
and if you need it you can purchase support. The "other" model I feel is
wrong... Charging an arm and a leg for the product and then charging the
arm and a leg for FAE support of the product. This seems to be a conflict of
interest to me.
> > This giving away code or not giving away code is going to be a thorn.
> > we all benefit from free software, however, some of us like to earn
> > Call me crazy, however, I would hate to see my hard efforts go to a
> > who makes money off my labor. There may be some pieces of software
> > that is truly deserving of being free because of its common application
> > lack of marketability. These I don't have a problem with. The other
> > of software, well, needs to be determined if it is a give away or some
> > form of licensing.
>While I sympathize with these sentiments, if you want more people to work
>in Ada, you have to give them
>1. something they can work on.
>2. something they think is worth working on.
Actually that is why the BSD license is worth a look. The BSD allows you to
an application that runs on a BSD OS without giving away you application
you would like to) This is a major flaw in the GPL AFAIAC.
Robin P. Reagan - Software Engineer [log in to unmask]
SEAKR Engineering, Inc. v-303.790.8499
12847 East Peakview Avenue f-303.790.8720
Englewood, CO 80011
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" -Albert Einstein-