Hockey wrote:Being a fan of open source, I have strongly considered releasing my application as such, plus it would assist in marketing efforts and testing...
And separate me that much more from my competition, which I need as a startup...
This is an excellent start. You've identified positive elements that come from the choice to go opensource. I think you have missed some of the biggest positive elements, but these are a great start.
Going opensource can indeed help with both marketing and testing.
Hockey wrote:Heres my biggets grief with OSS...
Everyone wants something for nothing, myself included, but that just can't be...it's simple economics...
Actually, this is a common misconception. First, economics shows that in fact you can get something of value (to you) from something of no value (to someone else). That difference allows the profit potential to grow, based on your ability to maximize the value between them.
Or put another (more crude) way, if you can get programmers in their spare time to code for you, and you can sell the result, thats free labor - the very best kind of economic force multiplier.
Hockey wrote:I am afraid that by releasing my app as OSS, it will be used, but people won't pay!!!
Thats an important realization and concern. It is entirely possible. Consider the case of Redhat. They have a commercial product (RHEL), and a non-commercial community product (Fedora). They charge for one, but not the other. They make a great example because the flaw in the concern is the assumption that people would pay for both. They won't.
I'm not saying there isn't a solution to the problem, as you will see, but the problem might not be as tragic as you think.
Some users will not pay, at all, period, no matter what. Those users, rather than being a "lost sale" can instead be converted to something worthwhile to your profit pursuit: Testing and marketing. Having a group of users that do not pay for your software, but that test it and advertise how great it is - is still a net value add for your goal.
Hockey wrote:At the same time, I would like to release my software as open source, free for personal use, but NOT commercial, because there is somehting that really bugs me about people who make money from my ideas, etc and don't return the profits...
This is where the dramatic difference between
Open source software and
Freedom software becomes obvious.
If the most important thing is allowing users the freedom to manage their information, their software, and empower them to help you,
Freedom software is the choice.
You are making a clear statement that to you, Profit is more important than the end-user freedoms. I am not framing or implying that is a bad choice. But it is a choice. This means you are embracing
Open source software, not Freedom software.
Hockey wrote:The way I see it...I make money using your software by catching a client who needs sugarCRM or something similiar (which is OSS) I should be obligated to give you what you ask in return.
But what specifically are you asking for in return? Testing? Marketing? Feedback? Fixes? or raw profits?
Hockey wrote:I don't currently offer a professional edition or two versions...I only have one...
So that license idea of marketing with free and making money off the pro doesn't apply to me...
There is an alternative. You are thinking of value-add in the software itself. ie, you assume that the "pro" version has different features than the "free" version. What if that different feature was official support by the vendor that created the software?
Thats the exact model followed by MySQL, Zend, RedHat and other freedom software vendors that do extremely well, despite "giving away" the software.
If you position your software that way, where the free version is the same software as the pro version, but it is unsupported, then you have established a value to your support. That support, in turn, can be priced as you feel is appropriate. You could (for example) offer 10 hours of support for a paid version that costs $500, setting your support rate at $50 an hour (not a bad living in this economy!). Maybe you want it to be more affordable, and you offer unlimited email support, but 4 hours of phone support for $200. Suddenly, they have a supported product, AND a value proposition. Oh, and as a bonus, its freedom software - they can do what they want with it.
Hockey wrote:So I would prefer a license where I allow people to use it for free in non-commercial settings or require $99 USD if they wish to use it commercially...
If none of the arguments above sway you (and they may not apply or be persuasive in your situation - nothing wrong with that), then yes, there are licenses that do that. For example, the Creative Commons licenses offers a no-commercial-use option. You use that for the 'free' version, and if they want the ability to use it in a commercial setting, you sell a proprietary use license for $99.
Hockey wrote:Does this sound fare? Is this something that is common in the OS community? I haven't seen a license like this...is there one? Do you think it would work or would the community (developers/designers in particular) ignore that request?
Its not uncommon, it has happened before. However, it will reduce the interest and ability of the free software community to be involved. By way of example, almost all of the code I work on is under the GPL. If I worked on proprietary code, I would feel conflicted and concerned that I might commit that proprietary code (including methods in it) to a GPL project. Since I value my freedom above almost everything else, I would decline to work on the proprietary code.
Others make similar choices in the freedom software community, so your focus on profits as the key benefit to get from end-users may cost you other benefits such as widespread advertising, awareness, testing, documentation, support, patches, improvements, and so on.