> >> How do we now that when we don't know Ian's business model?
> > My Business model is very simple,
> > I need pay for development time, there are 3500 secondary/sixth forms
> > in the country, 10% ish will use sims.net and moodle.
> > Im looking at 100 of the 350 possible schools to break even. This does
> > include additional revenue from on site install etc.
> > There will be multiple modules the supoort level/price will go up.
> > The main idea for having a support licence key to allow support
> > through third parties.
> > If a moodle partner wants to offer this integration as they already
> > have the relationship with their customers they will be able to
> > purchase multiple support licences from me. With each site having a
> > support licence i will be able to better manage support as i will be
> > able to tie tickets to support licences/installations.
> > could the terms of the support licence limit some of the terms of GPL
> > licence?
> You can do anything you want with a non-foss licence. So if you were
> to opt for a dual licence business model [1] the answer is yes.
> However, there is nothing stopping a Moodle partner, or anyone else,
> selling a support contract on your FOSS licenced code. No FOSS licence
> provides the means for limiting this. The dual licence model is not
> really about selling support, it is about selling a version of your
> code that can be incorporated in other products without that product
> being FOSS (and hence permissive licences are not suitable for dual
> licence business models).
> It is important to understand you don't actually need a separate
> software licence to sell a support contract. I can sell a support
> contract for any product that is not licenced in such a way as to
> prevent the customer buying that support from me (no FOSS licence will
> do this).
> A common approach to ensuring you get the support contracts is to get
> the widest possible distribution of your code and ensure that the
> world knows you are the main authority and therefore the best support
> provider. In this model other people will often sell front line
> support, but defer to you for second line support. The front line
> support people will often contribute to your project via the community
> model.
> The get maximum exposure you need to think about where you want you
> code to appear. Going GPL means that it can't, for example, be
> included in Sakai or Blackboard, both significant VLEs.
> Again, I'm not, at this stage, encouraging you to choose a particular
> licence, just to understand that there is no simple answer despite
> what many people will tell you.
The problem i have is my plugin allows integration between to
trademarked pieces of software.
SIMS.net and Moodle, i have coined the term SIMS2MOODLE and registered
a domain name for it.
I wouldn't be able to trademark the name due to cost and the fact is
uses two trademarked names.
I'm now thinking of releasing the plugins under gpl, but all the
documentation is restricted to support contract users to give the
contract added value.
On 28 June, 18:21, Tom Hoffman <tom.hoff...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not replying to anyone specific here, but this is the point in these
> arguments where it is usually helpful to point out that licensing
> isn't the only IP tool in a developer's shed. Trademark is what
> allows you to establish that only certain versions of a piece of
> software can bear its name and under what circumstances it can be
> redistributed *under that name*. Moodle in particular is very
> aggressive in their use of their trademark (firefox too).
> Also, as the established maintainer, you control the official version
> control repository. Other people can make changes, but they can't
> force you to use them, and if you control the trademark strictly, they
> can't redistribute their changes under the same name as the original
> product.
> --Tom
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Ross Gardler<rgard...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>> How do we now that when we don't know Ian's business model?
> >> My Business model is very simple,
> >> I need pay for development time, there are 3500 secondary/sixth forms
> >> in the country, 10% ish will use sims.net and moodle.
> >> Im looking at 100 of the 350 possible schools to break even. This does
> >> include additional revenue from on site install etc.
> >> There will be multiple modules the supoort level/price will go up.
> >> The main idea for having a support licence key to allow support
> >> through third parties.
> >> If a moodle partner wants to offer this integration as they already
> >> have the relationship with their customers they will be able to
> >> purchase multiple support licences from me. With each site having a
> >> support licence i will be able to better manage support as i will be
> >> able to tie tickets to support licences/installations.
> >> could the terms of the support licence limit some of the terms of GPL
> >> licence?
> > You can do anything you want with a non-foss licence. So if you were
> > to opt for a dual licence business model [1] the answer is yes.
> > However, there is nothing stopping a Moodle partner, or anyone else,
> > selling a support contract on your FOSS licenced code. No FOSS licence
> > provides the means for limiting this. The dual licence model is not
> > really about selling support, it is about selling a version of your
> > code that can be incorporated in other products without that product
> > being FOSS (and hence permissive licences are not suitable for dual
> > licence business models).
> > It is important to understand you don't actually need a separate
> > software licence to sell a support contract. I can sell a support
> > contract for any product that is not licenced in such a way as to
> > prevent the customer buying that support from me (no FOSS licence will
> > do this).
> > A common approach to ensuring you get the support contracts is to get
> > the widest possible distribution of your code and ensure that the
> > world knows you are the main authority and therefore the best support
> > provider. In this model other people will often sell front line
> > support, but defer to you for second line support. The front line
> > support people will often contribute to your project via the community
> > model.
> > The get maximum exposure you need to think about where you want you
> > code to appear. Going GPL means that it can't, for example, be
> > included in Sakai or Blackboard, both significant VLEs.
> > Again, I'm not, at this stage, encouraging you to choose a particular
> > licence, just to understand that there is no simple answer despite
> > what many people will tell you.
Penfold_99 wrote: > The problem i have is my plugin allows integration between to > trademarked pieces of software.
> SIMS.net and Moodle, i have coined the term SIMS2MOODLE and registered > a domain name for it. > I wouldn't be able to trademark the name due to cost and the fact is > uses two trademarked names.
> I'm now thinking of releasing the plugins under gpl, but all the > documentation is restricted to support contract users to give the > contract added value.
I've not really seen that model elsewhere. I would look at other similar projects and see what licensing they use. Have a look at Jomres
who have the brand name jomres, a EULA to exercise the right over the code, plus a MIT licence to allow 3rd party development of certain parts of the code.
After looking at that you may still decide to use the GPL and that would be fine. Licenses are complicated and there are too many around which doesn't help choose one. For my own project, I re-used an existing GPL'd code so I didn't have a choice but this fitted my model perfectly anyway.
> Not replying to anyone specific here, but this is the point in these
> arguments where it is usually helpful to point out that licensing
> isn't the only IP tool in a developer's shed. Trademark is what
> allows you to establish that only certain versions of a piece of
> software can bear its name and under what circumstances it can be
> redistributed *under that name*. Moodle in particular is very
> aggressive in their use of their trademark (firefox too).
> Also, as the established maintainer, you control the official version
> control repository. Other people can make changes, but they can't
> force you to use them, and if you control the trademark strictly, they
> can't redistribute their changes under the same name as the original
> product.
> --Tom
As a Mozilla employee who lurks on this alias, I'd say that this is an excellent point - who controls the trademark controls the project - although I would demur slightly from the idea that the Mozilla project is "aggressive" about trademarks - can we agree on "rigorous"? :)
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Ross Gardler<rgard...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 2009/6/28 Penfold_99<ianwtas...@gmail.com>:
>>>> How do we now that when we don't know Ian's business model?
>>> My Business model is very simple,
>>> I need pay for development time, there are 3500 secondary/sixth forms
>>> in the country, 10% ish will use sims.net and moodle.
>>> Im looking at 100 of the 350 possible schools to break even. This does
>>> include additional revenue from on site install etc.
>>> There will be multiple modules the supoort level/price will go up.
>>> The main idea for having a support licence key to allow support
>>> through third parties.
>>> If a moodle partner wants to offer this integration as they already
>>> have the relationship with their customers they will be able to
>>> purchase multiple support licences from me. With each site having a
>>> support licence i will be able to better manage support as i will be
>>> able to tie tickets to support licences/installations.
>>> could the terms of the support licence limit some of the terms of GPL
>>> licence?
>> You can do anything you want with a non-foss licence. So if you were
>> to opt for a dual licence business model [1] the answer is yes.
>> However, there is nothing stopping a Moodle partner, or anyone else,
>> selling a support contract on your FOSS licenced code. No FOSS licence
>> provides the means for limiting this. The dual licence model is not
>> really about selling support, it is about selling a version of your
>> code that can be incorporated in other products without that product
>> being FOSS (and hence permissive licences are not suitable for dual
>> licence business models).
>> It is important to understand you don't actually need a separate
>> software licence to sell a support contract. I can sell a support
>> contract for any product that is not licenced in such a way as to
>> prevent the customer buying that support from me (no FOSS licence will
>> do this).
>> A common approach to ensuring you get the support contracts is to get
>> the widest possible distribution of your code and ensure that the
>> world knows you are the main authority and therefore the best support
>> provider. In this model other people will often sell front line
>> support, but defer to you for second line support. The front line
>> support people will often contribute to your project via the community
>> model.
>> The get maximum exposure you need to think about where you want you
>> code to appear. Going GPL means that it can't, for example, be
>> included in Sakai or Blackboard, both significant VLEs.
>> Again, I'm not, at this stage, encouraging you to choose a particular
>> licence, just to understand that there is no simple answer despite
>> what many people will tell you.
On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 10:58 -0700, Penfold_99 wrote: > The problem i have is my plugin allows integration between to > trademarked pieces of software.
> SIMS.net and Moodle, i have coined the term SIMS2MOODLE and registered > a domain name for it.
Have you cleared the use of SIMS and Moodle trademark names in your domain name?
> I wouldn't be able to trademark the name due to cost
It's about £250 in the UK last time I looked. We have theINGOTs.org and The Learning Machine trademarked. Ok, it cost us £500 and doesn't cover the whole world yet but I'd say it is important to do it at least as a minimum for the UK. Another way of making money would be to run training courses but these are very expensive to advertise when you have no brand name strength etc. A partnership with Capita might help there.
> and the fact is > uses two trademarked names.
Just because you aren't trademarking your composite name doesn't mean you don't have to get permission for the names you are using though. If they deny you permission you could probably use CS2M or something else but SIMS2MODLE is good because it is memorable and says what it does.
> I'm now thinking of releasing the plugins under gpl, but all the > documentation is restricted to support contract users to give the > contract added value.
-- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications A new approach to assessment for learning www.theINGOTs.org - 01827 305940
You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
> Have you cleared the use of SIMS and Moodle trademark names in your
> domain name?
As im not passing myself off as SIMS or Moodle i don't need permission
AFAIK as per previous WIPO rulings.
> It's about £250 in the UK last time I looked. We have theINGOTs.org and
> The Learning Machine trademarked. Ok, it cost us £500 and doesn't cover
> the whole world yet but I'd say it is important to do it at least as a
> minimum for the UK. Another way of making money would be to run training
> courses but these are very expensive to advertise when you have no brand
> name strength etc. A partnership with Capita might help there.
I will look into the trademark aspect at that price one i have cost a
couple of customers.
A partnership with capita will cost £5000 a killer about for a small
project. Plus they are not interested in open source projects.
> Just because you aren't trademarking your composite name doesn't mean
> you don't have to get permission for the names you are using though. If
> they deny you permission you could probably use CS2M or something else
> but SIMS2MODLE is good because it is memorable and says what it does.
There are over 100 companies using SIMS as part of a composite name,
there are 8 using just SIMS, with one using moodle.
I doubt the 92 companies contacted all 8 for permission.
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 02:20 -0700, Penfold_99 wrote: > I will look into the trademark aspect at that price one i have cost a > couple of customers. > A partnership with capita will cost £5000 a killer about for a small > project. Plus they are not interested in open source projects.
Depends on who you talk to. Try contacting David Grasshoff, david.grashoff at capitaes.co.uk.
Last time John Ingleby and I met Capita a few years back they said they would look at waiving the £5000 fee for open source projects. Capita has to be very careful about being seen to use their market dominance to block competition. SIMS is a monopoly and if you claimed reasonably that £5000 was too big a fee for you to work with and you were prepared to go to the office of fair trading about it there is a reasonable chance they will change their mind. If they get investigated it will cost them a lot more than 5k and if found guilty they could get fined 10% of turnover which is not just SIMS but the entire turnover of Capita. Maybe 400 million in fines. If I was them I wouldn't take the risk especially as they have been warned in the past.
I was thinking more about a partnership with Capita that would be promotional rather than technical. Why would that be in their interest? Because they have to be seen to be not abusing a monopoly position and you probably have a lot more leverage than you think in that respect. Especially if you go backed by say SF-UK and the Open Source schools Projects. With an increasing take up of Moodle it is actually in their commercial interest to have reliable data exchange.
> > Just because you aren't trademarking your composite name doesn't mean > > you don't have to get permission for the names you are using though. If > > they deny you permission you could probably use CS2M or something else > > but SIMS2MODLE is good because it is memorable and says what it does.
> There are over 100 companies using SIMS as part of a composite name, > there are 8 using just SIMS, with one using moodle. > I doubt the 92 companies contacted all 8 for permission.
Possibly not but then some people are more inclined to take risks than others. The sort of problem that would arise is if, for example, a third party used a non-Capita recommended method of transferring data from and to the SIMS database and something broke. If there was a dispute of why - was it Capita or was it the third party? - I can see Capita then looking for any reason to hurt the third party if it reflected badly on them. This is effectively what happened in a big bust up with BromCom and AFAIK they still hate each other. Bromcom took Capita to the OFT and were close to winning the case even though Capita claimed it was because BromCom broke their database with crap code. That is why Capita is so insistent now on SIMS access going through their specific system. Charging 5 grand is probably commercially justifiable in some ways but I doubt it is a tablet of stone and could be challenged. If it was me that is what I'd do if I couldn't get a reasonable deal. It's very simple to make an OFT complaint. I made one a while back that cost me an e-mail and MS 30,000 pages of documentation trying to justify their position. A lot more expensive than 5k and it's still recorded as an unresolved issue so it can come back to haunt them at any time. Are you an OSC member? The OSC will back this type of action as a trade organisation so it gives it more weight.
-- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications A new approach to assessment for learning www.theINGOTs.org - 01827 305940
You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
> Depends on who you talk to. Try contacting David Grasshoff,
> david.grashoff at capitaes.co.uk.
I have contacted david through my current employers but is very slow
progress in getting full documentation, as you need to specifically
ask for each piece of documentation by name else you dont get it, but
the main issue is you done know what the documents are called.
If you become a capita partner you have to sign an nda, the nda is
incompatible with Open Source.
> Last time John Ingleby and I met Capita a few years back they said they
> would look at waiving the £5000 fee for open source projects. Capita has
> to be very careful about being seen to use their market dominance to
> block competition. SIMS is a monopoly and if you claimed reasonably that
> £5000 was too big a fee for you to work with and you were prepared to go
> to the office of fair trading about it there is a reasonable chance they
> will change their mind. If they get investigated it will cost them a lot
> more than 5k and if found guilty they could get fined 10% of turnover
> which is not just SIMS but the entire turnover of Capita. Maybe 400
> million in fines. If I was them I wouldn't take the risk especially as
> they have been warned in the past.
They might wave the fee but probably not the nda.
> I was thinking more about a partnership with Capita that would be
> promotional rather than technical. Why would that be in their interest?
> Because they have to be seen to be not abusing a monopoly position and
> you probably have a lot more leverage than you think in that respect.
> Especially if you go backed by say SF-UK and the Open Source schools
> Projects. With an increasing take up of Moodle it is actually in their
> commercial interest to have reliable data exchange.
Even with a non technical partnership there is as and nda which will
go against gpl.
> Possibly not but then some people are more inclined to take risks than
> others. The sort of problem that would arise is if, for example, a third
> party used a non-Capita recommended method of transferring data from and
> to the SIMS database and something broke. If there was a dispute of why
> - was it Capita or was it the third party? - I can see Capita then
> looking for any reason to hurt the third party if it reflected badly on
> them. This is effectively what happened in a big bust up with BromCom
> and AFAIK they still hate each other. Bromcom took Capita to the OFT and
> were close to winning the case even though Capita claimed it was because
> BromCom broke their database with crap code. That is why Capita is so
> insistent now on SIMS access going through their specific system.
> Charging 5 grand is probably commercially justifiable in some ways but I
> doubt it is a tablet of stone and could be challenged. If it was me that
> is what I'd do if I couldn't get a reasonable deal. It's very simple to
> make an OFT complaint. I made one a while back that cost me an e-mail
> and MS 30,000 pages of documentation trying to justify their position. A
> lot more expensive than 5k and it's still recorded as an unresolved
> issue so it can come back to haunt them at any time. Are you an OSC
> member? The OSC will back this type of action as a trade organisation so
> it gives it more weight.
My previous version of the software used unsupported data access with
sims.net, the new version now uses the supported way.
I'm not a OSC member, how do i go about joining?
I would echo the point Ian makes and I am pretty sure the OSC council
would support you in making a complaint to OFT (if that is what you
had to do) so long as we felt it had a good chance of success.
> On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 02:20 -0700, Penfold_99 wrote:
>> I will look into the trademark aspect at that price one i have cost a
>> couple of customers.
>> A partnership with capita will cost £5000 a killer about for a small
>> project. Plus they are not interested in open source projects.
> Depends on who you talk to. Try contacting David Grasshoff,
> david.grashoff at capitaes.co.uk.
> Last time John Ingleby and I met Capita a few years back they said
> they
> would look at waiving the £5000 fee for open source projects.
> Capita has
> to be very careful about being seen to use their market dominance to
> block competition. SIMS is a monopoly and if you claimed reasonably
> that
> £5000 was too big a fee for you to work with and you were prepared
> to go
> to the office of fair trading about it there is a reasonable chance
> they
> will change their mind. If they get investigated it will cost them
> a lot
> more than 5k and if found guilty they could get fined 10% of turnover
> which is not just SIMS but the entire turnover of Capita. Maybe 400
> million in fines. If I was them I wouldn't take the risk especially as
> they have been warned in the past.
> I was thinking more about a partnership with Capita that would be
> promotional rather than technical. Why would that be in their
> interest?
> Because they have to be seen to be not abusing a monopoly position and
> you probably have a lot more leverage than you think in that respect.
> Especially if you go backed by say SF-UK and the Open Source schools
> Projects. With an increasing take up of Moodle it is actually in their
> commercial interest to have reliable data exchange.
>>> Just because you aren't trademarking your composite name doesn't
>>> mean
>>> you don't have to get permission for the names you are using
>>> though. If
>>> they deny you permission you could probably use CS2M or something
>>> else
>>> but SIMS2MODLE is good because it is memorable and says what it
>>> does.
>> There are over 100 companies using SIMS as part of a composite name,
>> there are 8 using just SIMS, with one using moodle.
>> I doubt the 92 companies contacted all 8 for permission.
> Possibly not but then some people are more inclined to take risks than
> others. The sort of problem that would arise is if, for example, a
> third
> party used a non-Capita recommended method of transferring data
> from and
> to the SIMS database and something broke. If there was a dispute of
> why
> - was it Capita or was it the third party? - I can see Capita then
> looking for any reason to hurt the third party if it reflected
> badly on
> them. This is effectively what happened in a big bust up with BromCom
> and AFAIK they still hate each other. Bromcom took Capita to the
> OFT and
> were close to winning the case even though Capita claimed it was
> because
> BromCom broke their database with crap code. That is why Capita is so
> insistent now on SIMS access going through their specific system.
> Charging 5 grand is probably commercially justifiable in some ways
> but I
> doubt it is a tablet of stone and could be challenged. If it was me
> that
> is what I'd do if I couldn't get a reasonable deal. It's very
> simple to
> make an OFT complaint. I made one a while back that cost me an e-mail
> and MS 30,000 pages of documentation trying to justify their
> position. A
> lot more expensive than 5k and it's still recorded as an unresolved
> issue so it can come back to haunt them at any time. Are you an OSC
> member? The OSC will back this type of action as a trade
> organisation so
> it gives it more weight.
> -- > Ian
> Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
> A new approach to assessment for learning
> www.theINGOTs.org - 01827 305940
> You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
> Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
> Staffordshire, B79
> 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Aidan McGuire
Blue Fountain Systems Ltd
1 Alie Street
London E1 8DE
Tel 020 7680 8950
Mob 0777 5858 565
This message and any attachments are confidential. If you are not the
intended recipient, please telephone or e-mail the sender and delete
this message and any attachments from your system. If you are not the
intended recipient you must not copy this message and attachments or
disclose the contents to any other person. Registered in England 03216139
> I would echo the point Ian makes and I am pretty sure the OSC council
> would support you in making a complaint to OFT (if that is what you
> had to do) so long as we felt it had a good chance of success.
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 04:07 -0700, Penfold_99 wrote:
> > Depends on who you talk to. Try contacting David Grasshoff, > > david.grashoff at capitaes.co.uk.
> I have contacted david through my current employers but is very slow > progress in getting full documentation, as you need to specifically > ask for each piece of documentation by name else you dont get it, but > the main issue is you done know what the documents are called.
> If you become a capita partner you have to sign an nda, the nda is > incompatible with Open Source.
Why is the NDA incompatible with FOSS? Again depending on the reason that could be an issue for the OFT.
> My previous version of the software used unsupported data access with > sims.net, the new version now uses the supported way. > I'm not a OSC member, how do i go about joining?
-- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications A new approach to assessment for learning www.theINGOTs.org - 01827 305940
You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
> Why is the NDA incompatible with FOSS? Again depending on the reason
> that could be an issue for the OFT.
there is a gag clause that you can't divulge an information capita
give you. So an information you use from capita can't go into a open
source project as your divulging information.
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 04:53 -0700, Penfold_99 wrote:
> > Why is the NDA incompatible with FOSS? Again depending on the reason > > that could be an issue for the OFT.
> there is a gag clause that you can't divulge an information capita > give you. So an information you use from capita can't go into a open > source project as your divulging information.
I think you would be able to negotiate with them. I should think that if a reasonable person said "this information is needed for this project and is unlikely to materially damage Capita's business", the need for fair trade and interoperability will then over-ride what a company arbitrarily puts in a NDA.
-- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications A new approach to assessment for learning www.theINGOTs.org - 01827 305940
You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
|
