OpenCart business model?

rph wrote:

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 think imposing your moral views on how opensource software can/should be used by others is violating the spirit of it.

the problem is people beliving they have some sort of ownership over the code they write and nobody else can write the same code or features. ideas are free and mostly made up from other peoples ideas taken from the public domain.

Not specifically ownership, but I believe authors should have some level of attribution in the context of contributing in this community.

Case in point, you merging my Australia Post shipping module into the main OpenCart source and removing all credit / attribution of where it was sourced or that it was modified by you.

The result was me getting all the queries to fix a bug in my module that was introduced by you modifying the source.

If you're going to merge my work in, you should be willing to take responsibility for maintaining it, especially if you are removing all attribution.

SuperJuice wrote:

rph wrote:

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 think imposing your moral views on how opensource software can/should be used by others is violating the spirit of it.

SuperJuice wrote:Not specifically ownership, but I believe authors should have some level of attribution in the context of contributing in this community.

Case in point, you merging my Australia Post shipping module into the main OpenCart source and removing all credit / attribution of where it was sourced or that it was modified by you.

Ah, irony.

@rph: beeing now for over 10 years involved in the OpenSource development, I can only agree with you (sorry to all others who are not thinking this way).

Too many people are thinking, they can use OpenSourse software but giving some back is not what they want.
More, some are taking OS software (does no matter which license), take this as basis and sell a new package as new - removing any license and/or copyright and publishing this under their name!
And asking for a donation, the relation is approx. 6.000 : 1 (installations : donation in Euro)

@Daniel: in this point you are right, ideas are free.
You are entitled to grab any ideas and make some of it.
But taking code and publishing that 1:1 as yours is another thing.

@all: if someone publish a code, he will hold allways (!!!) the copyright (to be exactly: the intellectual property) except he is publishing this software under the coypright holder or donate this or assign explecitely to another.
This is one reason why the header in a software is important.

Statements like this:

Daniel wrote: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

are stupid and nonsens, because:

1. you can do what you want (if you take care of the license)
2. because of the license, it is clear that nobody can put another coypright on it
3. if someones code is taken by Daniel the intellectual properties and the original license stays intact
4. adding a license.txt to OC package and nothing more is NOT enough

There was quite (and is) some confusion about the license of OC.
Quite a long time in the wiki the LGPL was published.
On the other side, in the OS package the GPL is stated.

But there is a big difference between them.

Anyway, at one point Daniel is right: ' .. you can do what you want with the code ..'.
And itcart also: everyone can take OC, make a new package of it (or leave it as it is), add some to it (like modules, etc.) and sell this package, demand a fee and so on.
The only difference here is: the price for this 'new' package IS NOT FOR THE SOFTWARE, it can be only for the services!

This 'business' model is practiced very successful many times with much more successful software than OC is.

Yes, i am agree with you!! But ......

It is not permissible, however, sell the modules separately and request money.
All the separate modules that are sold are closely linked to the original code OpenCart.
You can sell the modules if they have independent code and require a special permit for connection to the database from which to extrapolate the necessary data.

For this reason, additional modules should be downloaded for free and receive money only for services related to it or, to write explicitly that the request for money is not the module but for the work supported the development of it.

In this way, all licenses are good for nothing!
..... All licenses are written to be deceived

by blogexecute

Not completely agreeable.

Because: you can offer at any time any software (GPL or not) and customers have to pay for it.
But - as said many times before - the customer does NOT buy the software or pay for the software, he pays only for the service!

For example: I could offer a download for OpenCart at one of my sites.
Everybody who wants to download has to pay for it.
But he pays ONLY for the service, not for the software.

Beside the fact that nobody would download it for a fee (or??), this could be a scenario.

Another fact is, that everybody can adopt any software (GPL), rework it, let his customer pay for this, BUT DO NOT PUBLISH it!
In this case the customer pays not only for the service, he pays also for the software.

GPL allows very much.

In the case of OpenCart, because of the missing triggers and events in the core, it as actually not that easy to sell extensions for it.
But it is possible, because only accessing the database and using some lines of the core to perfom actions (like submitting data to the core) is allowed.
Calling core functions is the same.
But the work must be done with my own script with my code.

That is the difference.

Templates are not the same.
The can be licensed under any license and can be sold.
Here the customer pays for the work, service and the script.
Also allowed by the GPL.

To say:

In this way, all licenses are good for nothing

is absolutely not correct, you have to read - and understand - them only.

Finally: things like the DCA are nice, but only for the US(A).
In the EU (espcially in AT & DE) is some what falls under license, copyright, intellectual properties very restricted and can be punished up to nearly 100.000,- Euro (per case).
I guess in Italy who will have similiar acts.
In Tasmania is only desert.

It is like this forum here: every society has it rules.
If you do not like them, leave it.
If you violate them you will be punished.

is all a big mess!
I believe that in any case there are always small illegality.

If everyone has to run for every little illegal then all we have to pay penalties

rph wrote:

SuperJuice wrote:I think imposing your moral views on how opensource software can/should be used by others is violating the spirit of it.

SuperJuice wrote:Not specifically ownership, but I believe authors should have some level of attribution in the context of contributing in this community.

Case in point, you merging my Australia Post shipping module into the main OpenCart source and removing all credit / attribution of where it was sourced or that it was modified by you.

Ah, irony.

I knew you'd be back to troll my post (thanks for quoting out of context), so let me reword it. My issue exists with support of code and courtesy within this community.

From my original post (the bit you forgot to quote)

The result was me getting all the queries to fix a bug in my module that was introduced by you modifying the source.

If you're going to merge my work in, you should be willing to take responsibility for maintaining it, especially if you are removing all attribution.

From the GPL License:

The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates for a work that has been modified or installed by the recipient, or for the User Product in which it has been modified or installed.

If you change my code and essentially 'make it your own' don't expect me to support it and troubleshoot it. If you keep attribution (my terms), and I know what is going on (and I agree to the changes), I will be happy to support it, otherwise support is up to you.

This isn't dictating how you use the source, it is specifying terms by which I will support it after you touch it. You can do what you want with my source, that is why it is available for free, just don't expect me to support it after you hack it up and break it.

I don't think that is too much to ask.

I lost face and as did the integrity of my work due to major bugs I had absolutely no involvement in. I was expected to support/fix them (and I received all the email complaints) because I was the original author of the mod before it was hacked up and 'merged'. I ended up supporting/fixing it in this forum with a new release (twice now) and even after raising the issue, 1.4.0 was released with the same buggy hacked up version of the mod.

there are going to be rules about stopping people buying people work then releasing it for free. so don;t worry about that. i only want to stop people having the idea that because they create a module that means no one else can create the same module and giving it away for free.

Daniel wrote:there are going to be rules about stopping people buying people work then releasing it for free. so don;t worry about that.

This will be interesting to enforce.

I can see everyone with their itchy trigger finger on ionCube already.

Daniel wrote:the problem is people beliving they have some sort of ownership over the code they write and nobody else can write the same code or features. ideas are free and mostly made up from other peoples ideas taken from the public domain.

Amen to that.
I've picked up everything I know to date from other peoples code - it's the nature of learning how to code - by example.

This thread is going around in circles, but it seems mainly focussed around charging for modules or templates.

As has been pointed out, it seems absurd to have an entire application available free under the GPL and then have optional downloadable modules or templates that are either GPL or commercial!

The commercial gain - the business model - has to be service based.

"I'll code that module you need for XYZ price and as part of that agreement, we give the module back to OpenCart under a GPL license"

"Our company will build your companies e-commerce solution using OpenCart *AND* our e-commerce experience, our design experience, our ongoing support. As part of our agreement, we give any new code back to OpenCart under a GPL license"

That, in a nutshell, is a business model for Open Source software.

It benefits the company / individuals working with OpenCart financially (if they so wish) and ideally, it *should* benefit OpenCart because that company or individual will know it's in the best interests of everyone to *give* any code *back* to OpenCart under the same GPL license!

Easy peasy, simple as....

SuperJuice wrote:

Daniel wrote:there are going to be rules about stopping people buying people work then releasing it for free. so don;t worry about that.

This will be interesting to enforce.

I can see everyone with their itchy trigger finger on ionCube already.

IonCube dont resolve a problem!

On torrent there are the decrypt apps!

itcart wrote:IonCube dont resolve a problem!

Can only encourage people do NOT buy encrypted software - you will never know what is going in the background (e.g. sending data to anyone).
And sw encrypted by Ioncube cannot be used with php.5.3 - fact (Zend does not provide any loader for this version).
And it this would be a lousy 'business model'.

itcart wrote:On torrent there are the decrypt apps!

And how many viruses etc. additonally?
And - Ioncube encrypted sw cannot be decrypted.
Or show be one.

I am absolutly agrre with you!

I hope in OpenCart code base free and a service for fee.

Just curious what GPL you guys have been reading that says you can't charge for software only service? The GPL specifically states you can take a GPL app change it or not and charge money for it. The only stipulation is that you have to give the customer(the one who purchased it from you) the source code, and you cannot restrict them from redistributing the code however they want.

Not said that ever - was up to now talking about 'taking a script and require money for it'.
Of course can you sell GPL scripts - IF THEY ARE YOURS or from yourself!

But what is not true that you MUST give the source code away.
This is onyl a MUST IF you make the script downloadable.
But if you offer a CD (DVD) the script could also be in a binary format.
Later when the customer asks for the source code you MUST hand it out the customer.

And the customer can do with the script what he wants - in the sense of offering it free to everybody.

OSWorX wrote: Of course can you sell GPL scripts - IF THEY ARE YOURS or from yourself!

simply not true you can take someone elses gpl script and charge money for it as long as you leave the license in place.
not that this would be a good way of doing things, but it is allowed by the license.

But what is not true that you MUST give the source code away.
This is onyl a MUST IF you make the script downloadable.
But if you offer a CD (DVD) the script could also be in a binary format.
Later when the customer asks for the source code you MUST hand it out the customer.

And the customer can do with the script what he wants - in the sense of offering it free to everybody.

very true. You could actually use something like ion or zend encoder and not distribute the source unless a customer (someone who purchased it from you) asks for it then you have to provide the source. You are under no obligation to supply the source to anyone who did not get the product from you.

I would suggest beefing up the extensions directory, and also separating out a themes directory. Allow people to pay for a listing which will stand out from the others. Possibly offer the ability to sell people's extensions via opencart.com, where you would take a commission. Of course, you the creator of open cart would sell a couple extensions as well, and receive full profit.

I can also contribute if you need any help with the new website. I am sure that there are many of us that can help you out with that to free up some of your time to work on the shopping cart software. I personally do not have any money to donate at this time, later on that would definately be a possibility, but for now I can contribute with my services. Just let me know if there is anything that I may do to help, if anything.

Contributions I can help with:
XHTML + CSS
JQUERY
Graphic Design

Note: You should make a thread asking people that would be willing to contribute in the same manor and feature that thread on your main page. I think the responses should be great. The economy is a little weak and alot of people may not be able to contribute with money, but may be able to contribute in other ways. You could set it up where we could put things together and submit them to you for approval or something before they are implemented.

Also, in regard to the business model itself, Q's proposals are all very good ideas. Charging $1 for each download. Simply don't word it in a way that you are chargin for the software, if you are worried about that, simply word it as if the $1 charge is simply for the downloading "bandwidth usage" or something. Like a fee for the downloading service. Also changing the modules "contribution" section in a way that the software is free and the modules cost, then the module owner pays a percentage towards OpenCart for their sales.... This is a great idea. Another thing that could be implimented, and I don't know if this has already been suggested, but... You could do what Magento is doing. Offer the software for free and charge for support. Do some outsourcing in combination, such as people that are fluent with OpenCart freelancing support for your users, then you pay them a cut for their help. This would free up time for you, revenue would still be generated, and this could expand the help you current have. You could also do this in combination of the $1 Download Charge. You could set a teir of support options such as; Teir One - Basic Help With The Software. Teir Two - Basic Installation of the Software. Teir Three - Installation of Software as well as Unique Website Design. Then charge a rate for each. Just an idea.