OpenCart business model?

SuperJuice wrote:As usual i2Paq I have very little to agree with you about.

That is why this is called a forum/discussionboard if we all would agree then there was nothing to discuss

Guilting people to pay for an opensource project.. that won't work either.

I'm not missing any point. If joe user goes to use OpenCart, then finds out after he installs it that he is up for $50 in mods to make it worthwhile he will think twice.

This is how it is at PrestaShop and other sites as well. If someone offers a same sort of mod for free nothing will stop him/her.

If people want to offer mods for sale on here so be it. I think there are better ways to make revenue than taking a cut off other peoples work.

What you are suggesting is people can't openly talk about their mods on this forum if they haven't paid their penance and posted the mod here (allowing Daniel to make a cut). That is complete and utter BS.

So in your above example, QPhoria's current sales model would be void unless he hosted/posted his mods here. Whether he wants to do that or not is up to him, but if he didn't, the whole community would lose out if he couldn't mention his mods in the forum.

Lets not forget that without OpenCart they would not make money from making mods etc. at all.

There is always a middle road in this. They can talk about their mods but if they want to to sell them at the market place with a "OC certified" stamp they could be asked to pay a small fee. That could also be the case with someone like Q.

As for

I want to remind everyone that it is beautiful OpenCart free but must consider that it takes a lot of work to get the results. I think that Daniel has the right to receive money to compensate for his passing hours to stabilize the script.

There is a whole community of people here offering assistance with coding and development but Daniel insists on being the sole gate keeper to the source. I think the 'poor Daniel' posts really need to stop.

As long as Daniel does not want to have others work on the core directly that is up to him. He does take suggestions seriously as far as I can see.

This is by no way a "poor Daniel" topic.

I agree with the above post about getting mainstream traction to drive profit.

As has been discussed time and time again, people want:
1. Standard API between versions for mod developers
2. An upgrade path between versions *gasp*

Well, we do agree on something

..at the very least.

You only need to piss commercial users off once (the ones that make money and are likely to donate) to have them never return.

That all depends on the product and the competition.

I'd like to contribute to this discussion. Before you have any kind of business model, you generally first have some kind of roadmap. A target state to aim for, and based upon your current location, a step by step approach to achieving that goal (apologies for the lecture).

So OpenCart (ie Daniel) needs to provide a target state goal (the best opensource cart, the most functional free cart, the most loving cart community etc.). From that we can work out how we get there (including the model Daniel can implement to somehow earn some money from OC).

Large software companies have product roadmaps. If we had this for OC, then contributors could volunteer for a future function and help develop it. In return for developing you get free access to code that would otherwise be paid for. People or organisations can pay money to have some features in advance, or to have some features built which would not organically grow via the primary development path of the product. I'm happy to share my development roadmap and pay someone who wants to build my mods ahead of time.

It's good to have some free and some paid-for contributions. The key is the promise that paid-for mods are supported (just pretend the mod is free and the support costs $5). Free mods are supported out of good will.

Also, the free product must function out of the box, otherwise people can't try-before-they-buy and will simply look for an alternative. When I stumbled on OC, I started developing new modules within the first week. I now have a library of tricks which I'd be glad to share (or profit share with Daniel if that's the model).

So Daniel. Where is this heading and how shall we get there ?

- [MB]

Edit by i2Paq: this is not the topic for this.

Regarding not getting enough cash to live off updates, I guess that depends who is paying?

Put it this way, we've got a client who we're trying to find a solution for and they've got a pretty good budget for the project.

Programmers rates - that depends on skill level, but generally, your looking at a lowest rate of £20 an hour and then right up the scale. It also depends on the size of the project. If the project size isn't viable enough to charge an hourly rate - as in the cost would be ridiculously high - then a quote should be put forward.
On the flip side, if the project size is too small, it's not worth bothering with.

On this forum, I've mentioned I was very keen for commercial services, due to a serious lack of resource in our team - this is a ridiculously common business technique - *all* agencies use external coders - freelance or contract based.

For me, OpenCart would be an absolutely perfect project if the creator of the software, Daniel, had the time to spare to add in the features a client of ours requires. Yes, it would probably end up as more of a bespoke project - but a great deal of the changes would make it back into core - which would benefit the community as a whole. The fact is, these requirements are pretty much what *all* retailers would love to have.

I've got a tender document created by a client who has been in charge of e-commerce sites for years - basically, this is info "from the horses mouth" as it were - it lists the types of requirements retailers need in detail.

Opencart is damn close to meeting a great deal of those requirements, which is what impressed me so much when I stumbled across it during research.

Hi guys

I've just had a quick read over this thread and would just like to draw your attention to this statement on use of the GPL, which basically relates to plugins/extensions/modules whatever you want to call them: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins

Though it's not particularly in the spirit of open source development, to say that all plugins (or similar) to a piece of gpl licensed software must also be released under the gpl is kinda misleading (at least as far as I can tell reading though the actual document and the FAQ's).

If the code you are writing as your plugin actually exists and works as a self contained program or set of of libraries then the rights to that self contained software are yours to do with as you wish, because they don't interact with the core program, in this case opencart.

The only code that does have to be released under the GPL is that which ties the result of your libraries or program to open cart itself (this is the real definition of the plugin code, again as far as I can tell), which might well be completely useless as a standalone piece of work.

So, if you're interested in writing commercial extensions for gpl software then (it seems that) you're free to do so, so long as the code that does the donkeywork of your extension is basically a self contained sub-system.

That subsystem is the commercial part you charge for, while making the actual plugin (the bit that interacts with opencart itself) licensed under the GPL (regardless of whether or not it's actually of any use without your commercial side to back it up).

I guess this is one of the reasons some software vendors in the opensource arena offer free lite versions of extensions of gpl-ed products with the option of a pro version which you pay for. The lite version being the actual plugin the pro version being a self-contained subsystem added on offering the rest of the functionality.

Lastly I do just want to point out that I'm a developer like a number of you guys and not a lawyer so I could be wrong, but given the license itself and the guidance on it offered as FAQ's by the FSF I think I'm right

SolidSite.co.uk, I won't bother quoting your text but this is the crux of it.

Yes modules/addons are fine to release non GPL'd if they don't use/modify part of the original source.

The problem is, a lot of useful modifications that provide a large amount of additional functionality do require modification of (and are derivitive of) the main source tree because the API/hooks just aren't there to write it standalone.

Things like payment gateways/postal methods are usually achievable, other modifications with more functionality are not.

SuperJuice wrote:Yes I think it's good code, yes I think Daniel has done well.. but if you're in it to make a living off it I think selecting GPL as your license and labeling your product 'OpenCart' was the wrong way to approach it.

Open doesn't necessarily mean "free". At my work we use OSAS - Open System Accounting Software - a product that's in no way, shape, or form free. It's "open" in the sense that we get the source code with it and the right to modify the program as we desire.

If you start forcing users down a road of purchasing functionality they will just go elsewhere, simple as that. Developers will also go elsewhere I would say.

Why would developers have a problem with it? If you don't want to buy a module just write your own. Heck, you could even turn around and sell it for a price you consider fair (or give it away if your heart desires). As a starting point OpenCart is an incredibly full-featured product.

I don't see any problem with the proposed business model either. It's similar to how the previous e-commerce package I worked with operated: core functionality was free (and much, much less than what OpenCart currently has) and access to useful modules was a one-time flat fee. There's tons of opportunity to sell niche payment and shipping modules alone. Certainly no series entrepreneur would even blink at a $15 or $35 business expense.

@SolidSite.co.uk
For our case, OpenCart modules/addons must in their majority be under GPL since they are absolutely linked. They use datas, functions, structures from the core; they query the database, they are not standalone applications that can be run by themselves. The exception is for Templates where the graphic part cannot be under GPL, but any source code with the template must be GPL.

You could then sell modules starting at $5, or have them free downloaded as you will in a business model, but I think the license should be changed to OSL. If you click on the banner "OpenStore" at top of page, you will see Daniel's work under construction for the marketplace.

Another pb I see is that Daniel should place a Copyright now on all of his files of the zip. Actually the code is free, any individual/society can take it for commercial purpose. Placing a copy of the GPL with the zip is not sufficient. And I know, Daniel doesn't believe in Copyright, but ...

SuperJuice wrote: Yes modules/addons are fine to release non GPL'd if they don't use/modify part of the original source.

The problem is, a lot of useful modifications that provide a large amount of additional functionality do require modification of (and are derivitive of) the main source tree because the API/hooks just aren't there to write it standalone.

I get what you're saying, but it goes further than just the original source. A non-GPL plugin must not share (use) function calls or data structures with those which exist/are created by the original GPL source.

I guess what I'm trying to point out is that the 'trick' seems to be to make the gpl side of your plugin the thing that interacts with the original program/source as much as is as necessary (basically to provide those hooks in one way or another) and the non-gpl aspect the actual self contained useful code which does something else.
The GPL side makes minimal calls to the non-GPL code (e.g. to instantiate it and maybe return a result that it can use) and the license is satisfied.

There are always going to be mods which are so entwined with the core functionality that they simply have to be considered a GPL extension of the original, but with a little bit of thought to the design of the mod I'd expect the majority could be written in this way and thereby commercialised.

I don't want to go on and on about this, but I think the last thing I'll say on it all is that in my mind there is only ever 2 sensible options if you're releasing code to the world:
1) make it completely free, open and without restriction or
2) make it commercial

The minute you start to go part-way free and open by using the GPL or similar, all sorts of issues and legal wranglings can arise such as this, which actually end up hampering progress, and anyone who's actually got a vested interest in ripping off the code you've released for their own gains are pretty likely to be able to without you ever knowing about it. That's why I like and use the WTFPL, as opposed to any others even if it's a bit aggressive

SolidSite.co.uk wrote: The minute you start to go part-way free and open by using the GPL or similar, all sorts of issues and legal wranglings can arise such as this, which actually end up hampering progress, and anyone who's actually got a vested interest in ripping off the code you've released for their own gains are pretty likely to be able to without you ever knowing about it. That's why I like and use the WTFPL, as opposed to any others even if it's a bit aggressive

I'd entirely agree.
You only need to look at the Drupal community and the staggering amount of very high quality modules to understand this.

The business model for OpenCart is to provide installation support, maintenance etc.
And this doesn't mean just Daniel - it means anyone who uses the software, within the legal framework, to make commercial gains.

If the company I work for decides to adopt OpenCart for one of our clients - bang - we've got a business model. We're charging that client to build an ecommerce solution for them, on OpenCart and we'll charge to maintain that solution.

If OpenCart, some years down the line, is still around - who knows, maybe it will have matured into something similar to Magento - an open source offering and an 'enterprise' edition.

That's the beauty of Open Source - you don't charge for the software, *anyone* can grab the source and tinker with it, but there's cash to be had supporting that software.

An analogy, if you weren't a plumber, you'd probably not choose to redo all the plumbing in your house even if you had all the materials for free, instead you'd hire someone to do it for you!

What is not normal in your stories, is to have on one side business or online shops who earn immediately money with the sale of services or products with OpenCart they get free, and on other side the author and developers who program for peanuts. If that's the beauty of open source, I think it's a scam.

I have no desire to spend time programming for glory, on behalf of Open Source, solutions that make others get big money. A shop that makes $30.000 / year sales (and I know somes), can afford to pay $300 in addons (that's 1%). And I think the GPL has nothing to do with e-commerce software, it is not its field.

gob33 wrote:What is not normal in your stories, is to have on one side business or online shops who earn immediately money with the sale of services or products with OpenCart they get free, and on other side the author and developers who program for peanuts. If that's the beauty of open source, I think it's a scam.

I have no desire to spend time programming for glory, on behalf of Open Source, solutions that make others get big money. A shop that makes $30.000 / year sales (and I know somes), can afford to pay $300 in addons (that's 1%). And I think the GPL has nothing to do with e-commerce software, it is not its field.

It's totally normal gob33.

Lets get a few things straight:
Linux is Open Source, Apache is Open Source, MySql is Open Source, PHP is Open Source = LAMP.
Some of the worlds most successful companies run on a combination of these technologies - and many of them give back to Open Source, because it's beneficial to them.
Ideally, OpenCart runs on a LAMP stack (although it can run on windows or Mac)

Coders can code for free for any number of reasons - for the love of coding, to hone their skills, to get noticed, to be part of a community - many also have full time jobs, or freelance, or even have their own companies - yet *still* give away code for free.

I can't tell you why Daniel has chosen to make Opencart Open Source, but I can tell you why I would in his shoes - to get input from a community, to give back to the Open Source community that I earn my living from, for the sheer challenge of it - any number of reasons.

You can't be naive about this - it's the way the world works.
Many of the worlds greatest inventors saw not a penny of reward for their creations - in some cases, the inventions didn't have any commercial merit until after they were long gone. Many of the worlds greatest inventions were given to humanity for nothing.
That's the spirit of Open Source.
If someone makes commercial gain from your hard work, so what? - As long as you license it so you get the credit for that work and so commercial entities can't "steal" the code, it's a win win situation.

I can't believe how naive your comments are about opensource gob33.

It doesn't matter how much anyone makes off it, that's the point. Just because I decide to use opensource software doesn't mean I owe the author anything, no matter how much money I make off it.

If you're so obsessed with the corporate model go work on selling a corporate solution, not sure opensource is the right place for you.. in the same way you claim GPL isn't right for e-commerce.

These writings are just a bit about ideals.
Here, we are speaking of one individual (Daniel) who should benefit from his work, not companies that provide services, or foundations for the community. It's not also a great invention that will improve life as there are already tons of e-commerce softwares.
Ok, I misspoke, I should have spoken of FREE open source. For me, producing FREE open source for the love of the code comes into conflict with the commercial mass use that is made of it and money taken from that. I have programmed FREE modules for e-commerce software in the past that users have downloaded and used for their shops, but now I believe Im tired of having provided free programming and support for very little in the end. Coding experience is my only benefit, my life has not changed, time has passed. And I think I will not go into that way again if it is the way taken by OC.

About the GPL, it's only good for you end-users, so why Magento, PrestaShop have not adopted it for their business models on behalf of community or beauty of code ideals?

SuperJuice wrote:It doesn't matter how much anyone makes off it, that's the point. Just because I decide to use opensource software doesn't mean I owe the author anything, no matter how much money I make off it.

While that's technically true I think anyone who profits from open source software but refuses to give back - be that a donation, code, or helping other users - is violating the spirit of it.

I'm pretty sure this conversation is coming to a close now (at least it might be time to stop it before it starts repeating itself)?

So I'd like to ask one more question and suggest that whoever's modding the forum whether that be Daniel or anyone else think about closing the thread soon after a response...

Daniel, I expect (forgive me if I'm wrong) that you chose the GPL for OpenCart because it's one of the most prominent OS licenses that comes to hand and 'should do the job'.

I like OpenCart a lot, it seems to be written on top of some kind of (older) stripped down version of CodeIgnighter which means it's easy to develop for and I think it could become a serious contender over the next year or two.

I would love to develop for it both from a commercial and a community point of view BUT am very unlikely to due to the terms of the GPL and I'm sure I'm not the only one...

So, has any of this discussion made you rethink your choice with a view to using any of the other, less restrictive licenses e.g. OSL or even WTFPL? If not can you explain why and bring this conversation to a close?

Its not a striped down version of codeigniter.

only the load class are simular.

How can you say something belongs to code ingiter when all i'm doing is creating the most simplist of each class requeired to run any web application.

1. codeingiter does not have a front controller that can do pre dispatches. Just a poor hook system which is not mentioned in any design pattern.

2. code ingiter does not have any system to handle sub components of the page such as the header and footers.

Daniel wrote:Its not a striped down version of codeigniter.

Fair enough

Daniel wrote: only the load class are simular.

I think there's many more similarities than just that

Daniel wrote: How can you say something belongs to code ingiter when all i'm doing is creating the most simplist of each class requeired to run any web application.

I didn't exactly and you answered this in your first point. TBH it doesn't matter the point is that there seems to be a lot of similarities, and that makes it easy to develop for.

Daniel wrote: 1. codeingiter does not have a front controller that can do pre dispatches. Just a poor hook system which is not mentioned in any design pattern.

2. code ingiter does not have any system to handle sub components of the page such as the header and footers.

1. Not really looked at that, so can't comment

2. Yes it does, pages are generally entirely built out of sub-components


Technicalities aside, can you answer the question?

OOPS,

don't worry about the license. you can do what you want with the code except try to put any type of copyright on it.

Dan, Well said.
Everyone does what he wants with the code, modify it, it arranges etc. etc.

Maybe sells complete packages with third-party modules already installed and in operation, demanding a fee for the service integration capabilities.