Rekall Binary

[R.Marquez]

So, Rekall is now GPLed. However, after a quick look at theKompany's
website I see that they charge $69.95 for the download version. And
looking at the rekallrevealed.org site I only see the source available
for download. I am not complaining about it, but I see this as a good
opportunity for someone to offer a $40.00 binary version available for
download. And, then someone else might want to offer one for $20.00.
And then ...

Ok. This is silly. Why doesn't theKompany simply offer the binary
version available for free and offer support contracts, as other
apparently successful companies are doing? That would at least spead
up Rekall's penetration in the market, and prevent the scenario I
describe above.

Sincerely wondering,
-Ruben

 

[root]

It looks like

TotalRekall sells the GPL version for 15 pounds:

http://www.totalrekall.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=CCart&id=16

Which seems in keeping with:

"...small charge for Rekall binary distributions to cover our costs"

By the way, it's still not clear how strong a busness model it is to
give away GPL software and expect to make money off services. Have you
seen what RedHat is now doing?

In any case, I don't think there is anything wrong with charging more
than distribution costs for a binary version of GPL'd program. Creating
binaries that work on various versions of various platforms and
providing a nice installer for them is quite a bit of work. Also, the
GPL is about freedom: not cheap software. The idea is that it a good
thing for all involved for users to have access to source code. That is
very different than providing inexpensive software for folks that can't
figure out how to compile something (or can't be bothered). Those folks
will not be contirbuting to the p[roject, and will not be using the code
in their own projects.

That being said, I'm very happy that I can get so much open source
software in nicely packaged binary (or easy to compile) form. I only
contribute to a VERY SMALL fraction of all the free software I use.

-Chris

 

[R.Marquez]

It looks like

TotalRekall sells the GPL version for 15 pounds:

That's my point. (Any takers for $10?)

http://www.totalrekall.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=CCart&id=16

Which seems in keeping with:

"...small charge for Rekall binary distributions to cover our costs"

By the way, it's still not clear how strong a busness model it is to
give away GPL software and expect to make money off services. Have you
seen what RedHat is now doing?

How strong a buisness model is GPL software is a relative issue. If
you mean making the kind of money that software developer houses used
to make in the BOS (Before Open Source) days then it isn't. But you
just may be able to support your family on it and pay the rent (and
maybe even buy a modest house if you are really successful). I see
nothing wrong with that. This are hard times you know.

In any case, I don't think there is anything wrong with charging more
than distribution costs for a binary version of GPL'd program. Creating
binaries that work on various versions of various platforms and
providing a nice installer for them is quite a bit of work.

True. And that may be so in this particular project. Still, if any
one offers a $10 version they'll sweep that part of the "business
model". Not a very strong model in my opinion. By going GPL, the
developers made a decision to leave the old BOS way of competing and
taking on the new one.

GPL is about freedom: not cheap software. The idea is that it a good
thing for all involved for users to have access to source code. That is
very different than providing inexpensive software for folks that can't
figure out how to compile something (or can't be bothered). Those folks
will not be contirbuting to the p[roject, and will not be using the code
in their own projects.

However, those folks sometimes get the software into their companies
and demostrate to their peers how productive it is. This in turn
sometimes results in the application proliferating on the enterprise
to the point where support is needed or desired by the CIO or the CEO.

That being said, I'm very happy that I can get so much open source
software in nicely packaged binary (or easy to compile) form. I only
contribute to a VERY SMALL fraction of all the free software I use.

But have you talked to others about it, or directly passed it on?
That is, even in a very little way, contributing to the health of the
projects in question.

 

[Paul Rubin]

How strong a buisness model is GPL software is a relative issue. If
you mean making the kind of money that software developer houses used
to make in the BOS (Before Open Source) days then it isn't. But you
just may be able to support your family on it and pay the rent (and
maybe even buy a modest house if you are really successful). I see
nothing wrong with that. This are hard times you know.

An acquaintance of mine started a GPL-centric company, Cygnus
Solutions, that at first mainly supported GCC. One of the first
things he did as sufficient profits appeared was bought himself a
Maserati with the license plate "GNU CC". He did that specifically to
show off how one could make money doing free software. The company
was later sold to Red Hat, another GPL-centric company, for an amount
in excess of $100 million.

 

[Lothar Scholz]

How strong a buisness model is GPL software is a relative issue. If
you mean making the kind of money that software developer houses used
to make in the BOS (Before Open Source) days then it isn't. But you
just may be able to support your family on it and pay the rent (and
maybe even buy a modest house if you are really successful). I see
nothing wrong with that. This are hard times you know.

"The Kompany" wasn't able to pay the developer for month with non GPL
software, why do you think they can do it with GPL now (if you say
yourself that it will be less then in the BOS days) ?

In fact i believe that a main stream desktop tool like "Rekall" has no
future when it must live on support contracts only. If you need
support then the product has an error, but i don't want to use
errounous software. This is the reason why GPL does not work for a lot
of software products.

 

[Ray Smith]

(e-mail address removed) (Lothar Scholz) wrote in message
[snip]

In fact i believe that a main stream desktop tool like "Rekall" has no
future when it must live on support contracts only. If you need
support then the product has an error, but i don't want to use
errounous software. This is the reason why GPL does not work for a lot
of software products.

Every non trival product has errors. ( And most trival product )

Support charges "seem to me" to be one of the most popular ways for
Open Source devlopers to make an income. Coupled with the fact that
most sane IT managers won't rely on unsupport software it seems to
make alot of sense.

Note: IT managers will rely on "officially unsupported" software if it
has an excellent track record, i.e. Debian, in the same breath why do
so many companies buy Linux supported distributions (i.e. Red Hat)?

Regards,

Ray Smith

 

[R.Marquez]

"The Kompany" wasn't able to pay the developer for month with non GPL
software, why do you think they can do it with GPL now (if you say
yourself that it will be less then in the BOS days) ?

Yes, I think the Kompany is in a difficult spot. I think they waited
too long to release Rekall as GPL. The reality today is that we live
in the shadows of a huge monoply. Basically, the only way that I (and
many others) see to compete with an application that is part of that
monopoly is through Open Source/Free software.

I am not against closed source or proprietary software in principle
(except on the Operating System layer where I think that closed source
has no place since it prevents a level playing field). I am happy
that developers have the choice. But, until the grip of the monopoly
is relaxed, or Linux takes off, I see no point in trying to compete
with them that way.

There are already products appearing on the same space that are going
to give Rekall even more competition in the cross platform space (e.g.
Omins Studio, Kylix, etc). I want to see Rekall succeed, mainly
because it uses Python. So, at this point I think it would be better
for the developers to provide it for free and build up a loyal base of
users and bug/patch submitters.

In fact i believe that a main stream desktop tool like "Rekall" has no
future when it must live on support contracts only. If you need
support then the product has an error, but i don't want to use
errounous software. This is the reason why GPL does not work for a lot
of software products.

I think Rekall has great potential. With a little imagination and
creativity it could offer things such as a plug in mechanism that
would allow it to perform many things beyond the basics. The
developers could offer some of these pluggins in a closed source
fashion if they chose, without alienating the rest of the Rekall
community, and without sacrificing quality.

Any way, this are my two cents worth.

-Ruben